Ep. 1838 - A Lot Of People Should Go To Prison For Doxxing Lindsay Clancy’s Black Juror

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