Ep. 1836 - Lindsay Clancy Jurors Disgrace Themselves in New Viral Interviews

Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. "Maybe it's Maybelline." Well, it finally happened after waiting for a grand total of one half of a business day. Several women on the Lindsey Clancy jury decided to run to the media for a tell-all interview about their deliberations. They simply couldn't stay out of the spotlight, alone with their own thoughts. What few thoughts they might have for another moment. So these females did what you'd expect any serious good juror to do if they have utmost reverence for our legal process. They picked a friendly left-wing media outlet, NBC News, and they got in front of cameras to run their stupid mouths. Now the idea was to make themselves look intelligence, thoughtful, empathetic, instead what these depraved imbeciles actually achieved very clearly was to affirm every stereotype about female jurors that they possibly could have affirmed in record time. They single-handedly set the feminist movement, the suffrage movement, democracy back by about a century with this one interview. Now as we discussed last week, we always assumed the women on the jury were tormenting the lone male holdout, like an unspeakable love, crafty, and horror. We knew that the women were subjecting this one man to never ending screeching condescension, passive aggressiveness, and mind-numbingly stupid nonarguments as he held his ground and insisted on voting guilty. We always assumed that the jury deliberations from the perspective of the lone sane male must have resembled a Twitter comment section come to life as he tried desperately to reason with people who lack the capacity for rational thought. And while we were correct about all those assumptions, in the end, we didn't go nearly far enough. The reality of the situation was somehow even more disturbing and bleak and intolerable than we could have imagined. The footage from the interview from NBC News and another interview with CBS is not simply radicalizing in the sense that it might have you rethinking democracy, the 19th Amendment, jury trials, perhaps even civilization itself. It's also ironic, in a very dark sense, because you see, it turns out that the very same women who accused the lone male member of the jury of ignoring the judge's instructions, in the case, were in fact themselves ignoring the judge's instructions and the law in an obvious and wildly inappropriate and flagrant manner. And they admit as much in this nationally televised interview without realizing it. In fact, in multiple interviews, including a phone interview that we'll play in a second, these females admitted that they disregarded the law in no uncertain terms, because they personalized, personally sympathized with Lindsey Clancy, just like the Derek Chauvin jury. They had an outcome in mind from the beginning of the trial, and they were hell bent on achieving that outcome. There is no other way to interpret these interviews. This again is not so much a surprise itself, but the casual brazen way that they admitted openly and publicly is genuinely shocking. And it's also grounds for these particular women to be held in contempt of court. And there's reason to question whether the prosecution deliberately tanked this case, especially the female prosecutors, because for some of these jurors, their bias was exceedingly obvious. And if the prosecution had done any due diligence at all, they would have known that, filling the jury with feminist boomers is prosecutorial misconduct of the worst kind. There was never any hope of a guilty verdict. It turns out. And that was ensured before opening arguments even began. And you know that just from looking at these creatures, that's before they open their mouths and remove all doubt. So before we even get to the jurors' social media history or their admissions about ignoring the law, we have to begin with a truly jaw-dropping statement from one of the many elderly women on the jury, who you will notice is apparently incapable of even pronouncing the words reasonable doubt. This is an elderly woman who is attempting to answer a question about whether the male was a rogue juror or not, whatever that even means, rogue. Not agreeing with the women makes you rogue. But I want you to listen very carefully to every word of this. Try to understand, we read to him on numerous occasions the definition of a reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day in the end, well why don't we have the judge come in and read it again? And we were like, no, we have it in front of us. We don't need that, and we would highlight it and, you know, so and so, this is the definition of a reason to go. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children. Yes, you heard that correctly. They tried again and again to tell the male about reasonable doubt. But he wouldn't budge because, and I quote, he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children. Can you imagine that? This one guy, this total madman had a hard time getting off the central fact of the case, the entire reason the trial was taking place to begin with. This guy really struggled to move beyond the fact that Lindsey Clancy sent her husband out of the home in premeditated fashion so that she could systematically execute her children one by one in the basement. That's just classic male behavior, right ladies? I mean, talk about man's planning. He shows up to a murder trial and can't get past the murder. Who does he think he is? He also reminds me of the time that I went to the dentist and all the guy did the whole time was focus on my teeth. He was obsessed. It was so weird. I'm like, dude, what, you can't get off the teeth. What's with you and teeth, man? Never even asked about my feet or my elbow. What a freak. Now, not to get too hung up on pesky things like the meaning of words, by the way. But the word vicious literally means something done maliciously and with intent. So if this woman agrees, as she says, that it's a fact that Clancy killed her kids viciously, which obviously it is, then she had an obligation by her own words to vote guilty. If the killing was vicious, then it was intentional and deliberate by definition. There's no such thing as doing something viciously by accident. So this woman has confessed, even if she didn't mean to, that she actually agreed fundamentally with the holdout, even as she tries to throw them under the bus. And I don't think the word vicious here is incidental or accidental. All of these women heard the 911 call. One of them admitted that hearing the father's anguished cries over his dead children has changed her life. She'll never get over it. These women peered directly into the abyss with this case. I mean, they saw and heard things that nobody should ever have to see or hear. So she called it vicious because she knows it was. She knows even better than I do or you do or any of us. And yet she still wanted to acquit. These women sat in a trial for weeks with evidence so shocking, so gut wrenching that they say they will never recover from having witnessed it, and yet they still cited with the killer. And not as like sober objective observers, but as cheerleaders with pom-poms. The moral depravity on the part of these women is hard to fathom. I truly hope that they live in shame and humiliation for the rest of their lives. That's what they deserve. They deserve to live in shame. They deserve to live as pariahs. But I'm sure they're incapable of experiencing either of those emotions, so they'll be fine. Now, this particular female juror is named Kelly Farina. She's a retired chef from Plymouth, Plymouth, Massachusetts. According to Mama Magazine, which was in the courtroom for the trial, Farina was the juror wearing the pink dress during the trial. Clancy supporters, you remember, rallied outside the courthouse wearing pink in an effort to sway the jury. And additionally, a few online sleuths went looking around Farina's Facebook page. And one of them found that Farina is apparently a member of the free Karen Reed Facebook group. The profile picture matches. And in this group, if this is accurate, Farina appears to endorse a conspiracy theory about how Reed was supposedly framed for murder. In other words, based on this reporting, there's reason to believe that this juror publicly indicated long before the Clancy trial, again, that she was willing to believe deranged online narratives in order to find a woman, not guilty of a murder she obviously committed. And somehow, this never came up during jury selection. The prosecution completely missed this. There's a random woman on X named Meredith, who managed to find this Facebook post in five seconds as soon as she learned this woman's name. But somehow, no one in the prosecutor's office could find this. That's what we're supposed to believe. So there are only two options. Either the DA is completely incompetent or they wanted to tank the trial. And we need an explanation and ideally new prosecutors before any retrial begins. I keep in mind, again, the prosecutors on this case were women, female lawyers in Massachusetts. So the chances that they are themselves bitter feminists who personally sympathize with Lindsey Clancy is statistically very high. So the possibility of them intentionally tanking the case is not far fetch. I mean, I don't know if that's what happened, but there's reason to suspect that maybe it did. It did. And again, we're just getting started. So here's more brilliant insight from this lady, listen. - Kelly, I experienced you to be one more expressive juror under everybody. It was very serious and somber and human by all means, but you kind of had a eyebrow that occasionally went up and I'm wondering what your reaction was to the prosecutor's opening statement. There were some things that they said in their statement that I thought got a reaction out of you on day one of destiny. - I just found it to be harsh, so very, very harsh. I mean, again, I mean, we're talking with ourselves here, but the fact that they had no character witnesses to, in we got to Lindsey of being a bad mother. I mean, we're out of the gate. It's like, you're presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody's presenting, and for the prosecution, a woman, a mother of three children. So I found it to be biased right out of the gate. I found the muscle to be kind of unprofessional. And just without a heart, and for me that, I read away, I was like, okay, where is this going? Right from statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now, which I guess is expected of a prosecution, but I thought it was very cold. - So these women are somehow profoundly dumber than I even expected. You need to understand how stupid everything you just heard is. So they claimed they needed to see character witnesses to prove that Clancy was not a good mother. Somehow murdering her three children wasn't enough evidence for that. To be clear about this, the prosecution is supposed to be adversarial to the defense, that's kind of the whole point. They're not supposed to present the defense's case for them. They're supposed to be biased against the defense. How else could it work? How could you have a trial where the prosecutors are entirely impartial as to the outcome of the case? They're arguing for one point of view. Of course, they're biased in favor of the point of view they're arguing for. What is she even babbling about? Now, the jury, on the other hand, is not supposed to be biased in any way. The defense is going to be biased in its favor. The prosecution is going to be biased in its own favor. The jury's whole job is to not have a favorite and to follow the facts impartially. So this woman is accusing the prosecution of bias when, in fact, she was obviously committed to a not guilty verdict from the beginning. This is a classic case of projection, and it's not particularly subtle. No, the fact that Lindsey Clancy was nice to her children before she murdered them, allegedly, but the fact that she was allegedly nice to them before she factually murdered them has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether she deserved to go to prison for deliberately killing them in a premeditated manner. There are millions of examples of murderers who, at one point in their lives, were on friendly terms with their victims. Chris Watts, for example, has, was very nice to his wife and his children before he slaughtered them all. So he could run away with some woman that he was having in a fair with. Robert Durst was a big fan of Susan Burman before she outlived her useless. Aaron Hernandez, partied a lot with Odin Lloyd, right up until the moment the Hernandez drove Lloyd to a secluded industrial park and orchestrated his execution. Jody Arias was enamored with her ex-boyfriend until she decided to slit his throat in the shower, stabbing him dozens of times before shooting him in the head. And if you want to go really far back, Marcus Junius Brutus was a close ally to Julius Caesar right up until the Iads of March, and we all know how that turned out. So all this to say, the fact that the defense was able to present evidence that Lindsey Clancy was at one point to all superficial outward appearances at least, supposedly allegedly a loving mother is completely irrelevant. The vast majority of murderers snap in some way. That doesn't mean they're not guilty by reason of insanity. What the jury is doing here in case it's not obvious is creating a new legal rule where women can get away with murder anytime they want. They're saying that by definition, anyone who kills her own child cannot possibly be guilty of murder because only a criminally insane person would ever do that. I mean, think about how you could extend this logic to every other relationship in your life. And you can never convict anyone of anything ever again. It's absurd. Everyone is now not guilty by reason of insanity. If you take their rule to its logical conclusion, anyone, let me put it this way. I'll try and break it down for these ladies. Anyone who has ever murdered anyone ever was not a murderer up until the moment when they committed the first murder. Right, so we could get more into the metaphysics here if we need to. I don't think it should be necessary. A person has not done a thing until they've done it. The fact that they didn't do it before they did it does not disprove the fact that they did it when they did it. Does that make sense? If someone commits murder, you can't say, well, but they never murdered anyone. They weren't doing any murders up until that murder. You get this infinite regression thing going on now where it's like no one. So the only time we could convict someone of murder is if they've just been murdering since the very moment of their existence. Is that the only time? If you're confused about this, how this works, then you are, and I mean this in a clinical sense, retarded, and you shouldn't be on a jury. This alleged failure of prosecution to prove that Clancy was a bad mother came up multiple times from these women, and it comes up a lot among Lindsey Clancy supporters generally. It's a major hang up for them, apparently. But the problem isn't just the fact that her bad mothering was very definitively proven by the fact that she killed her children. That's all the proof that any reasonable person could ever need. The other problem is that the prosecution was legally barred from presenting that kind of evidence anyway. The rules of evidence prohibit the prosecution from bringing on character witnesses to prove generally that Lindsey Clancy was a bad mother. Okay, they can't even do that. They're not allowed to. So if there's anyone out there and I think it's very likely that there is who knew Clancy and saw her being a bad mother prior to the killing, the prosecution could not under the rules of evidence present that person as a witness. I mean, it is highly likely that there are female acquaintances, friends of friends who knows in laws, cousins, former classmates, former co-workers out there. Who, if they were asked and felt safe to speak freely, would tell you that Clancy was in their hypothetical words, a total, every woman has other women out there who would describe them that way. It is reasonable to assume that a woman who is also a mass murderer certainly has a few of those other women out there. But the prosecution could not legally present any of that as evidence and for good reason, because it wouldn't be evidence. You can be a total and kill your kids or you could be a total and not kill your kids. That's not really evidence of anything. So these women on the jury decided the prosecution was not credible because it failed to do something that it was not legally allowed to do. They are criticized in the prosecution for following the law. They are claiming the prosecution should have defied the law and presented prejudicial irrelevant character assassination witnesses, something that if they had done that, obviously these women would have condemned them for it anyway, because these women had already made up their mind and it really didn't matter what the prosecution did or didn't do. Just clump, dewy hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Maybe it's Maybelline. What does it actually mean in Massachusetts to be not guilty about reason of insanity? I'm not going to re-litigate my many criticisms of the insanity defense or the fact that Massachusetts law is extremely absurdly lenient to defendants to the point that frankly, if it's applied in a very liberal manner as it has been here, it's hard to imagine any defendant ever getting convicted. Massachusetts, unlike most states, requires that the prosecution prove the defendant is not crazy beyond a reasonable doubt, so they have to prove a negative about what was going on in someone's mind beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason I'm not going to re-litigate these legal criticisms is that based on their own comments, the jurors frankly didn't care about Massachusetts law anyway one way or another. Nor did they care about the jury instructions. Watch. Ronnie talked a lot about how managing those deliberations was harder than her work as a fifth grade teacher, and they confirmed there was one hold out juror. I asked them what they thought of him being described by the prosecution as a rogue juror. Here's what they said. He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said. In nurses, he tried to ask a question about the medications, and we went back to the report from Social Hospital. We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in their room spoke to that and talked to the jury, there were nurses on the jury. Yes. They spoke to that specific thing, that was a question that he had. He just completely disregarded the information that they gave. This is an astonishing admission, and she doesn't even realize it, and of course neither does the NBC reporter. She's saying that when the loan hold out was refusing to acquit, the nurses on the jury tried to convince him that Clancy was not guilty using their medical expertise as nurses. So the nurses spoke to that, she says. This is completely obviously inappropriate based on the standard jury instructions in Massachusetts and every other state. Jers are not allowed to consider expert analysis from other members of the jury. They're only allowed to consider the testimony of experts who testify on the stand along with any evidence presented at trial. Quote, "No juror is better qualified to determine the truth of the facts in controversy or to deliberate upon a verdict than any other juror, or solely because of that juror's occupation, education, experience, or any other characteristic." That's from the model jury instructions. Jers are allowed to use their own common sense and draw from various life experiences, but they're not allowed to act as an unsworn witness with any kind of special knowledge, instead they're supposed to analyze the testimony provided in the court, including the expert testimony. And the reason is simple, experts in court are subject to cross-examination. Both sides can probe their credentials and legitimacy of their findings, but in a jury room, if someone says, "I'm a nurse." And here's the truth about postpartum psychosis, then other jurors are going to feel pressured to agree with them. It completely defeats the purpose of calling expert witnesses. It defeats the purpose of the trial. What's the point of having jurors listen to testimony if they're going to provide their own unvetted testimony in secrets in the jury room? And by the way, the guy was completely right to ignore the nurses in the jury room because nurses don't really know much, that's relevant to this case. Sorry. Most of them can't even prescribe medication, didn't go to medical school. I mean, what is a random nurse in a jury room? Suddenly, how is that going to be a credible expert on psychoactive drugs? You know, we're talking about nurses, schoolteachers, chefs. These ones don't have any base of knowledge that gives them any secret insight and any additional insight into this case at all. The whole thing is absurd. So what's so incredible about this jurors' admission, which, by the way, is grounds for holding her in contempt of court, is that she doesn't seem to even realize what she's saying. It's not simply that these women are dumb, they're dumb, while also believing that they're extremely intelligent and savvy. They've been convinced by a lifetime of feminist propaganda that everything they say is a stroke of genius, and here we are. Again, these are the same women who think that the lone male hold out was the one who was ignoring the law and bypassing the judge's instructions. And the same breath, they're admitting on camera that they tried to pull rank on this guy. Even if we assume that they're characterizing this male jurors' statements fairly, which they obviously aren't, there's still no way to get around the fact that they tried to intimidate him. They wanted to pressure the lone held out to acquit. And when that failed, they tried to have them thrown off the jury. Actually for a while, it appears there was another hold out on the jury, at least one more. Before we get back to this NBC interview, I want to pull some footage, which is audio only from a CBS phone interview with another woman on the jury, who's apparently the youngest woman on the panel. So listen to her reasoning. She said that she was initially leaning towards a guilty verdict, and then she changed her mind and listened to why she changed her mind. So where did you come down from the very beginning? Like what was your vote? So originally I saw as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this was a woman who, you know, she was not mentally healthy. She was someone that was in the swirls of a significant mental health crisis. I tried to really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out. Because at the end of the day, there was so much doubt, you know, the prosecution to have a figurative, you know, smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout that presentation, in that case, that you could say, "Oh, yep, 100 percent, I'm certain she did it," or that she didn't do it. There's too much gray area. And eventually I decided the only way to get justice for Cora Dawson and Callan and Patrick and her parents and anyone else that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed. And there's a little way she's going to help them, for example. So this woman says she went into deliberations thinking Clancy was guilty. But she switched to not guilty because it was the only way Lindsay would get the help she needs, quote unquote. That's how she wants to get justice for the murdered children and their father. She's openly admitting, leaving aside the fact that, you know, the idea that getting her help means justice for the victims, like leaving aside how absurd that is an incoherent. The point is that she disregarded the law in order to ensure that Lindsay Clancy would get better mental health treatment. So it suffices to say that on the jury, you are not supposed to be making decisions based on those kinds of calculations. You are there to judge whether Clancy was guilty or not, period. Your job is not to ensure that she gets the help she needs. That is not a legitimate legal factor to be weighed by the jury. In fact, the jury was explicitly instructed not to take that kind of thing into account, not to take potential punishments and consequences for Clancy into account at all. Their one single sole responsibility was to determine whether Clancy was criminally responsible for murder or not. Whether that determination would lead to her getting help or not was not only irrelevant, but it was a factor the jury was explicitly forbidden from weighing, but they did anyway. Now, the extent to this woman actually talks about Clancy's guilt or innocence under the law, she says the following quote, "There was so much doubt the prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of the case where you could say, 'Yep, 100 percent, I'm certain she did it,' or that she didn't do it. There's too much gray area." Okay, so there's a lot to examine there. Starting with the fact that the prosecution's burden of proof is not to demonstrate with 100 percent certainty that Clancy is guilty. That is not what proof beyond a reasonable doubt means, and this is not a minor detail. This is not semantics. The burden of proof is one of the most important things that we can do. important issues in the trial. And this woman did not understand it. And again, this is ironic because these women were making that the claim that the lone male juror was the one who didn't understand the concept of reasonable doubt, but clearly they didn't. Because now they're giving these interviews all over national television, were they state explicitly that they couldn't convict Lindsey Clancy because they weren't 100% certain she did it. Now, by the way, for the record, Clancy admits she did it. Her defense attorney admitted it multiple times during the trial. The only question under the law is whether she was in control of her actions and could appreciate that they were wrong. So this is a woman who deliberately sent her husband away from the house so that she could slaughter her children alone. And then after she methodically committed the murder, she threw herself out of a window in the most half-hearted suicide attempt imaginable. Suddenly, she forgot how to kill a human being when it came time to kill herself. These actions make it clear that Clancy was in full control of her actions and appreciated that her actions were wrong. Clancy didn't mention psychosis a single time until she loyered up. She never mentioned this alleged voice she heard but until after the fact. So even under the law, even under Massachusetts law, as absurd as it is, it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was guilty. Is it 100% clear? Well, no, in the sense that nothing is 100% clear if you want to be philosophical about it. You know, I can't be 100% certain, Clancy was criminally responsible because I can't be 100% certain that she even exists. Maybe this is all a simulation. Maybe we're plugged into the matrix. Maybe it's an elaborate dream. Maybe pigs really can fly and they've been lying to us the whole time. Any of those things are technically possible, which is why it's a good thing the juries are not tasked with weighing every technical possibility if they were deliberations would take in eternity instead of just half an eternity like this jury. The question is about reasonable doubt. Yes, it's technically possible that Lindsey Clancy isn't responsible because maybe she was being mind controlled by aliens or something. Like technically, is there a, is there like a 0.00001 percent chance of some sort of sci-fi reality like that? Sure. Is it reasonable to assume that? No. Is it reasonable to have any practical doubt about her guilt? Are there any reasonable doubts? No. There is no reasonable doubt. The only doubt that you can have about Lindsey Clancy's guilt is the kind of doubt that you might have about whether like you're going to walk outside and suddenly start floating into the sky. It could technically happen, but it's not a reasonable thing to worry about. But none of the jurors understand any of this. Instead, the more they talk, the more they make it clear that they rigged the case. So here's more from this same interview, listen carefully. You know, this standalone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to deceiving from the other side. So I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions and, you know, you got to die in my charge to be unable to self-analyze ourselves and be like, okay, am I missing something? Now, I haven't really seen anyone else mention this, but she references the dynamite charge from the judge. That's the jury instruction, the judge issued after the jury to report it being deadlocked twice. The instruction is basically to go back to the jury room and really try hard to reach a verdict. But just one problem, the judge never called it a dynamite charge, nor did any of the lawyers in the case. It's a very strange term, very specific term to use, if you think about it. Most people have no idea what a dynamite charge is in reference to a trial. But if you were on social media during the trial, or if you were watching court TV, then you heard dynamite charge mentioned hundreds of times. So it seems likely that this juror was violating another important rule, which is that we, she wasn't supposed to read or watch any outside information or analysis about the case. Not that there was really any doubt that that was happening anyway. It's one of the many reasons this jury should have been sequestered. Everything they were told by the judge or by witnesses in the case was quickly filtered through social media and court TV in all likelihood. It was all corrupted. And it's a big deal because it makes the judge's instructions completely useless and now the jurors are coming out and admitting it without realizing it. It's also likely for being honest that the jurors concocted the plan to oust the loan hold up by consulting outside sources. I mean, that could have happened. At the very least, the dynamite charge language would raise a question about whether this juror is at the, again, at the very least a true crime fan. Yeah, it's not like true crime. True crime, like women who are really in the true crime will just kind of casually use this sort of like legal language, even though they're not lawyers, because they just watch this stuff all the time. And now this is in their vocabulary. But the problem is that a true crime fan should not be on this jury or any jury ever. But admittedly, in terms of egregious rule violations by these jurors, this is just the tip of the iceberg. So let's go back to the NBC interview we were looking at. Here's the jury for person, a retired fifth grade teacher demonstrating her infinite wisdom watch. I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. After we watched that video of the interview, I think that's what it was. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually did with three forms. I had a fill out. And I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, but I'm still not gonna say that she's not guilty by reason of incident. First of all, why exactly is the four persons so excited by the prospect of a not guilty verdict? But it's not the fact that she's excited about a child killer getting acquitted and potentially walking free in society in a few months or rolling free at least as disgusting and pathetic as it is to be excited about that. The fact is it shouldn't matter to her one way or another how the trial ends. No one on the jury, especially not the four persons, should be excited about any particular verdict or outcome. When a jury gets excited during deliberations, then by definition, something has gone seriously wrong. They're supposed to play the role of a neutral, serious arbiter. And this jury clearly did not fulfill that responsibility. What's evident in this clip, of course, is that the four person was excited because from the very beginning of this case, she wanted Lindsey Clancy to be acquitted. She had a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. She was eager to fill out those forms and announce a not guilty verdict. For the same reason, she's giving these idiotic interviews. She desperately wanted to be a hero for feminists everywhere to establish the legal precedent that they can murder their children at any age and get away with it. And she was thrilled that for a brief moment, she thought her fantasy would become reality. Now, as for her claim that the jury admitted or the jury admitted that he had reasonable doubt, we have no idea if that's true or what the context was. But from this clip, it's clear that these female jurors didn't actually care about the guy's reasoning. By own admission, the moment she heard the word doubt, she started filling out the verdict forms for an acquittal. She wasn't interested in what doubts the loner may have had or how significant those doubts were. All she cared about was the end result. So when he told her that she that he wasn't going to vote not guilty, she became frustrated and angry. This was not a deliberation in other words. They were trying to reach a particular result. At 18, people are expected to choose a career before they've had enough experience to actually know what kind of work suits them. And then if they reach 30 or 40 and realize they chose the wrong path, changing direction is treated like failure. Well, it is. What I appreciate about Grand Canyon University is that it understands education is not limited to the traditional path from high school to a college campus. GCU is a private, non-profit, Christian University. Whether you study on its Phoenix campus or online from home, GCU offers hundreds of programs designed to help students build practical skills and prepare for meaningful careers. That flexibility can make pursuing a new direction possible for working adults who already have jobs and responsibilities. GCU has also held tuition steady on its traditional campus for 17 years while continuing to invest in its students. In fact, 75% of its programs and facilities have been built within the last decade. It's never too late to pursue meaningful work without abandoning the values that guide you. Learn more at gcu.edu. Grand Canyon University private Christian affordable, non-profit. That's gcu.edu. Finding a t-shirt that looks good feels high quality and doesn't break the bank is a lot more difficult than it used to be or should be. That's why my producer was overjoyed to find Mac Weldon after listening to this show. They make classic menswear that looks good without being flashy or complicated. Their air knit ex-collection follows that same philosophy. It combines breathable nylon mesh with four-way stretch so it moves with you without bunching, sagging or feeling restrictive. It's lightweight, moisture-wicking, odor-fighting, but still looks like regular, well-made clothing. Mack Weldon offers air-knit X in t-shirts, polos, undershirt, socks, and more. It's made for guys who want to stay comfortable throughout the day, while still looking presentable, without wasting time, planning an outfit, constantly adjusting their clothes, or putting any more thought into getting dressed than absolutely necessary. Go to Mack Weldon.com and get 20% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code WALCH that's m-a-c-k-w-e-l-d-o-n.com code WALCH. As the interview continued, that became more and more obvious. It also became clear that the DA badly miscalculated by putting two female prosecutors on the case. I mean, honestly, the prosecution had no chance, anyway, based on what these jurors are saying. But we still need to talk about the assumption in the DA's office about how female jurors can be expected to behave in a murder trial like this one. So, with that in mind, watch the jurors' assessment of Kevin Reddington, who's the slimy defense attorney watch. Here's what they had to say about Kevin Reddington and the defense. This is his whole demeanor, yeah, it was funny. And there was one time, whatever he said, I don't know, but I went because he was entertaining, which was good because we needed some of that. And arrogant at the same time, like arrogant and entertaining. He would go back and forth between that. Yeah, like compassionate. Yes, through his arrogance. His compassion towards Lindsey was amazing. His compassion for Lindsey was amazing. Never mind the fact that he's getting paid like $10,000 an hour or whatever for that compassion, but you know, it was amazing. He was arrogant, yet compassionate at the same time. He was funny. He made them laugh and court. Meanwhile, the female prosecutors were supposedly unprofessional. They lacked compassion. They were biased. Now, let's grow a test to imagine, but it's clear that these postmenopausal women were sitting in the jury box just swooning over the decrepit old defense attorney. Too busy having hot flashes to even listen to the facts of the case. This is another clear argument against making important decisions through the lens of DEI. It simply doesn't work. The DA made this mistake in two separate ways. First, the DA staffed the case with female prosecutors. And secondly, the DA was willing to load the jury with women to the point that it was nine females and three men. Presumably, the DA thought that those nine women on the jury would be disgusted by the thought of another woman killing her own children. And they'd identify with the stern female girl boss prosecutors instead. That was never going to happen because the vast majority of leftists, women in this country, which is to say the entire female population of Massachusetts, by the way, genuinely want the right to murder their children. I mean, a huge number of them, millions already have. Millions of women in this country have already murdered their own children through abortion. That's just a statistical reality. And so, and women like that are not going to be objective or impartial about a case like this. They see themselves on trial, their own guilty conscience. And that's how it is. They're playing for keeps. The whole trial is just merely a game to them. You know, on top of that, it's also an opportunity to be entertained, it turns out. They don't actually care about the facts of the evidence. They want the right to murder their children whenever they feel like it on the demonic theory that children are essentially parasites that prevent women from satisfying all of their personal narcissistic desires. The 50 different waves of feminism have all been leading to this point. And now we're here. Kevin Reddington understands precisely how to appeal to women like this. He'll pose for selfies outside the courthouse. He'll entertain all kinds of deranged theories about the case. Believe in badger witnesses and the judge during the trial. Reddington does not care about the integrity of the legal process or professionalism, or anything you'd expect a lawyer to care about or hope that they would anyway. He's the perfect match for jurors who don't care about the law either. That's why he just went on Good Morning America to demand that Trump pardon his client, even though he obviously knows the president cannot pardon a state-level murder charge. Watch. What's next for Lindsay? I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, made very well. Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon. So that's totally ridiculous. Again, it couldn't even happen anyway, but the goal here is to bait Trump into talking about the case so that he can argue his client can't get a fair trial. It's all calculated and manipulative. It's behavior that repulses any well-adjusted person because it's so obviously dishonest, but millions of women find this kind of lawyer-ing to be compelling because in their own lives, they're manipulative and dishonest as well. I mean, that's the whole point of feminism after all. It's a license to strike back at the patriarchy by any means necessary. These jurors are no longer hiding their commitment to this ideology. During the same interview, they told NBC that if there's a retrial, they're going to shop to the court to show solidarity with Lindsay Clancy. Presumably, they'll be wearing pink again, just like they did during the trial. Watch. I sue all of our analysts on Commonwealth confidential, seem pretty confident there will be a retrial here of some kind. What did these jurors have to say about that likelihood? They were not necessarily supporting a retrial at all. One of the jurors was a little bit back and forth on it, but said all three of them, if Lindsay Clancy is brought for a retrial by D.A. Cruz, they will all of them be in the courtroom to support Lindsay Clancy. So interesting development there. That is an interesting development. All right, Sue O'Connell, I'll court women's side here. Thank you. I mean, these women are just sick. These women, and I feel perfectly fair saying that these are sick evil women on the jury. Those women, specifically, who've chosen to come out and identify themselves. They didn't have to do that. They could have remained anonymous. You know, we're not outing them. They outed themselves. And so we can say about them that they are sick, evil, awful women. Who again, deserve to be pariahs in the community, and deserve to live with shame and humiliation for the rest of their lives. They're bad people. And if I mean, just think about this. Not only again, do they acquit this woman. They're cheerleading for it. And now they're saying they're going to go back to the trial. You're going to sit and listen to these descriptions of children being executed again. You couldn't get enough of it the first time. You're that entertained by it. What is wrong with you demons? You would want to go back and listen again. You want to hear the 9-1 call again. You want to hear the description of how those children were strangled to death and their eyes were popping out of their heads. Blood vessels on their face. Rupsharing, you want to hear all that again. You sick, twisted monsters. Disgusting. Now, if the prosecution is worth anything and it probably isn't, they need to play every single piece of footage from these interviews in court as soon as possible. These women were corrupt from the moment they were selected. The legal process failed at every level. There should be hearing to establish exactly what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. They should all be charged with, you know, any relevant crimes, contempt of court. They should all be charged with contempt of court. The retrial needs new prosecutors and a new method of jury selection. And to that end, now will be a good time for the lone male holdout to come forward, anonymously if necessary, if he wants to, to explain exactly what happened in the jury room. What actually happened? You can certainly come on this show anytime he wants. It would be highly useful and informative for the court and the public to learn about the specific horrors he had to endure at the hands of these harpies. The role of the entire news media and the defense and most of the jury in this case was to silence this man and browbeat him into submission, to allow a triple murderer, a child killer to go free. Nearly one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in American history. And now this heroic juror has the opportunity to expose this corruption at length in front of a national audience. And if he does so, and if more people hear his story, then the next time a barbaric child killer is put on trial, there's a chance more men on the jury will do the right thing, which is to ignore the retarded nurses and schoolteachers and chefs and send her to prison for the rest of her miserable existence. That'll do for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. (upbeat rock music) (dramatic music) - Every significant movement in history has started with protesting. - No, I'm sorry. - Uncle Tom. - This is our generation civil rights. - I have no idea what the protest is about. - Bingo, given the current climate, should have figured as polarizing as place Saunders, even be allowed on pants. - Ah, can you hear me okay? - Saunders is a close personal friend of chance with Freeman. This is a decision I cannot find. - Islam will conquer the West. (dramatic music) - Some more nickel. - Are we paying attention? (dramatic music) - They've taken over the building, they're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. (dramatic music) - I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. - We cannot run and hide. - Muhammad is the messenger of God. - There is no God but Allah. - What do you say? We turn those vessel beings into a fine red mist. - As we move, one man will cover while the other guy goes. - They call that leapfrog. - Stop talking while we're listening. - You need a course in safe weapons handling. - Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new grippy setting mist from Maybelline, New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours with flexible all day comfy grip. Just clump to a hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new grippy setting mist from Maybelline, New York. - Maybe it's Maybelline.