The Ben Shapiro Show - September 04, 2026


BREAKING: Judge Threatens Mistrial In Lindsay Clancy Case


Episode Stats


Length

46 minutes

Words per minute

207.01

Word count

9,526

Sentence count

612


Transcript

Transcripts from "The Ben Shapiro Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
00:00:00.000 All right, folks, we are live.
00:00:02.000 The Lindsey Clancy trial is effectively done.
00:00:05.000 Right now, we are waiting to find out whether an appeal by the defense lawyer to hold off on the mistrial because he wants to try to cudgel one additional juror into just a full acquittal.
00:00:15.000 We're still waiting on that, but effectively, this is a mistrial.
00:00:17.000 Apparently 11-1 in favor of acquittal, one person in favor of conviction.
00:00:21.000 We're going to get to all the details and break down the case.
00:00:24.000 I have a feeling I'm going to disagree with some of the co-hosts here at Daily Wire.
00:00:27.000 One of those people is, of course, Michael Mills.
00:00:29.000 Michael joins us online.
00:00:30.000 Michael.
00:00:30.000 Thanks for taking the time.
00:00:31.000 Appreciate it.
00:00:32.000 Thanks for having me because I, I think you were working in tandem with the judge in this case.
00:00:36.000 I just wrapped my show.
00:00:39.000 I, no sooner did I end it.
00:00:40.000 I took my stage makeup off.
00:00:42.000 They say mistrial in Lindsey Clancy.
00:00:44.000 The one fact that is not being reported here though, as everyone is attacking this lone male juror, notably the defense attorney who in, I think an egregious display comes out and singles out this juror.
00:00:55.000 One thing that's not being reported is the juror obviously was suffering from postpartum depression.
00:01:00.000 So he can't be held accountable for any of his actions.
00:01:03.000 And now we have a mistrial.
00:01:04.000 So, shouldn't everybody be happy?
00:01:08.000 So, Michael, one of the things that I find very interesting about this case is that I look at this case and it's a pretty complex fact pattern.
00:01:14.000 I actually do not think looking at sort of how psychiatry is done, there's sort of a fake thing that happens in psychiatry where we assume that people are capable of pure, easy diagnosis and drugs are extremely effective in psychiatry.
00:01:27.000 And neither one of those things are true.
00:01:29.000 I mean, if you spend any time with psychiatrists or with the DSM or people who have dealt with psychiatrists or the DSM or medication, As I've said before, it's probably the least developed area of all medicine.
00:01:39.000 Psychiatry is incredibly vague.
00:01:41.000 Basically, these things are diagnosed on the basis of checklists, and they're based on a person's self reported symptoms.
00:01:47.000 And then when it comes to psychiatric drugs, very often it's basically trying different combinations of berries.
00:01:51.000 It really is almost that basic to see what works, and then certain symptoms arise, and then you remedicate based on that symptom.
00:01:56.000 And it's really complex.
00:01:57.000 And so, in this particular case, where basically the case comes down to, was she psychotic enough not to recognize the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murders?
00:02:06.000 I mean, that is the essence of the case.
00:02:09.000 And given the fact that Massachusetts law is incredibly biased in favor of the defendant when it comes to the insanity defense, I know a lot of people are very agitated on the right, saying this is a clear cut case, absolutely guilty.
00:02:18.000 And a lot of people on the left saying it's a clear cut case, absolutely innocent.
00:02:21.000 I kind of find myself weirdly in the middle and not all that surprised that the jury is hung on this.
00:02:27.000 I'm kind of surprised it was 11 1 in favor of acquittal.
00:02:29.000 I would have thought it would have been more like 6 6 in favor of mistrial.
00:02:32.000 What was your take?
00:02:33.000 Well, I think, no, I think you hit it right there at the end, which is the fact that this was not an ambiguous jury deliberation.
00:02:41.000 It appears to have been entirely lopsided in favor of letting this woman off the hook.
00:02:45.000 On top of the public reaction to this, which I think has been rather psychotic as well, I think shows you that something more is going on beyond nuanced deliberations over the nature of the statute in Massachusetts.
00:02:58.000 Your other excellent point is that psychology is this very muddled science or pseudoscience.
00:03:05.000 Psychologists don't even know what psychology is anymore.
00:03:08.000 Psychology is supposed to be the study of the soul.
00:03:11.000 That's what the word means, or psyche.
00:03:13.000 And ology.
00:03:14.000 And now I think probably most psychologists don't even believe in the soul or an immaterial soul.
00:03:20.000 On top of that, the way the medications work, even beyond psychology, just your other physical medications, if you look on the back of the bottle, a lot of times it will say, We do not really know how this works.
00:03:30.000 We just know that it appears to work in trials.
00:03:33.000 So, you know, good luck.
00:03:35.000 So, yes, it is a lot of mixing berries and witch doctors just looking at results.
00:03:40.000 In this case, though, there was a lot of misinformation at the beginning.
00:03:44.000 One, this idea that That Lindsey Clancy had postpartum depression.
00:03:48.000 Maybe she did, maybe she didn't.
00:03:50.000 She certainly wasn't diagnosed with it.
00:03:51.000 We know that her youngest victim was eight months old.
00:03:54.000 Again, postpartum depression is not usually the kind of thing you have eight months on.
00:03:58.000 We know she methodically planned these murders.
00:04:01.000 We know that a lot of the drugs in her system appear to have been taken after the killings rather than before them.
00:04:06.000 And then you get to the basic point that you're seeing in a lot of the popular commentary, which is, okay, well, look, if she was on a bunch of drugs, if she was a little loony, then she can't be held liable for that.
00:04:16.000 And you just have to look at that on a social scale and say, okay, one in four women in the United States is on some kind of psychiatric medication.
00:04:24.000 And when you get to the really stronger stuff, it's like one in five women.
00:04:28.000 So are we really establishing the precedent here that 20% or 25% of women cannot be held accountable for even the most egregious crimes.
00:04:36.000 I was a little more open minded at the beginning of this case, but as the evidence came forward about the nature of her diagnoses and the help she was receiving from her family, on and on and on and on, I don't know.
00:04:47.000 It seems pretty clear to me.
00:04:48.000 And I'm glad to see at least one of these jurors held firm and did not merely take the side that we so often do in our culture, which is defending the perpetrator over the victims.
00:05:00.000 Now, again, I think one of the things to mention here is that, you know, I will admit that if I were on the jury, I may have voted for acquittal because I think that the beyond a reasonable doubt provision of the law combined with the insanity defense in Massachusetts putting the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove sanity rather than the burden of proof on the defense to prove insanity makes it a very, very high bar for the prosecution to pass.
00:05:21.000 I'm not sure they passed it in this case.
00:05:23.000 With that said, obviously, I think that anybody who.
00:05:26.000 This is one of the reasons why I think it's such a sin for people to conflate their own personal issues with that of Lindsey Clancy.
00:05:33.000 I mean, the reality is that in the United States, every year you have probably 15 multiple.
00:05:37.000 Homicides of children from women in circumstances kind of like Lindsey Clancy.
00:05:42.000 But you have legitimately, as you say, tens of millions of women who are claiming they're suffering the same thing as Lindsey Clancy, which is totally insane and really, really damaging for the society at large.
00:05:51.000 The defense was basically I would say they have three basic arguments, the defense here, in favor of the idea that she was psychotic at the point at which she committed the murders.
00:06:00.000 And you don't actually have to find these totally convincing in order to sustain reasonable doubt.
00:06:04.000 To me, the most obvious one, the one that the prosecution, I think, had the hardest time with, was the fact that she tried to kill herself.
00:06:09.000 If she just killed the kids and then not tried to kill herself, then that would have been, I think, I would have been like fryer immediately if she doesn't try to kill herself.
00:06:16.000 The fact she tries to kill herself is a pretty good piece of evidence that she wasn't, quote unquote, in her right mind in sort of a colloquial sense.
00:06:22.000 Now, the prosecution started with the fact that she wasn't really trying to kill herself.
00:06:25.000 She only tossed herself from the second story window.
00:06:27.000 She didn't cut herself that deep.
00:06:29.000 I don't know, man.
00:06:29.000 It seems kind of risky to me to jump from a 15 foot window or 14 foot window, whatever it was, and cut yourself on the arms if you're really just trying to get away with the murderer that way.
00:06:41.000 It seems strange.
00:06:41.000 So, The, you know, that one always seemed to cut that piece of evidence, just the evidence itself, seemed to cut in favor of the defense.
00:06:47.000 The voice, again, I think is always the most difficult part of this case because there's literally no way to actually determine whether that happened or not.
00:06:54.000 Yeah.
00:06:55.000 Because it's purely subjective.
00:06:56.000 She's going to say she heard a voice.
00:06:57.000 Everybody else is going to say, there's no way you heard a voice.
00:07:00.000 She never wasted that piece of evidence.
00:07:01.000 She never wasted that piece of evidence.
00:07:02.000 Yeah.
00:07:03.000 Right, exactly.
00:07:04.000 So I always thought that was the weakest part, but also the part that her case rested on in large part.
00:07:09.000 And then there is the basic idea that she was worried about the medication interactions.
00:07:14.000 Again, I thought that was pretty weak for the defense that she thought that she was being, she didn't evidence that she thought she was being poisoned.
00:07:19.000 She worried that the medications were interacting poorly and weren't working for her, which is really, really common in psychiatric circles.
00:07:26.000 But when you put all of that together and then the burden of proof is on the prosecution, again, I can see how people would arrive at reasonable data.
00:07:31.000 I think that it'll be interesting to hear from the jurors afterward about how these deliberations actually went down.
00:07:37.000 Is it, as people like maybe you or I think our friend Matt Walsh suspect, that immediately they went into the room, 11 people, nine women and two of the men went, She's acquitted.
00:07:46.000 She's wonderful.
00:07:47.000 She's a model for humans.
00:07:48.000 Or were there actual legal deliberations along these fact patterns?
00:07:51.000 I don't know the answer to that.
00:07:52.000 Yeah, well, I think you can't really separate the jury's deliberations from the social phenomenon.
00:07:52.000 What's your take?
00:07:58.000 You like to hope that the jury is sequestered and is taking this in a graver and more sober way.
00:08:04.000 I don't know that that's always the case.
00:08:05.000 And the fact that none of us, I don't think any of us, could have predicted the insane outpouring of support by the women who brought their children outside the court and the craziness on TikTok, none of us has a low enough opinion of women or even of liberal culture to have totally predicted that.
00:08:23.000 I think that does tell you something about the moment in which we live and the way that people think about these issues.
00:08:28.000 So I'd love to hear the interviews from the jurors after this case.
00:08:33.000 I hope it is a mistrial.
00:08:34.000 We'll see if the Massachusetts Supreme Court grants that emergency stay or whatever the defense is trying to do as a Hail Mary at the end here.
00:08:41.000 But it does seem to me that this reflects a broader trend in the culture, which is constantly making everything about the self.
00:08:49.000 So everyone is just viewing, putting themselves in Lindsey Clancy's position, is constantly.
00:08:55.000 Erring on the side of perpetrators rather than of victims and of misunderstanding even what insanity is.
00:09:01.000 So, to your point, Ben, she tried to kill herself.
00:09:03.000 Maybe, maybe she did.
00:09:04.000 Again, you know, there would be more effective ways for her to have killed herself.
00:09:08.000 For instance, had she subjected herself to the same kind of torture that she put her kids under by hanging from a noose or something like that, that more assuredly would have done it.
00:09:16.000 But the overall facts in the case make me wonder even if she did try to kill herself, okay, does that mean that someone who is suicidal at the end of things? Can't be held guilty for a crime?
00:09:27.000 If a husband comes home after a night of drinking, shoots his three kids, kills his wife, and then flings himself out a window, would we say, well, he's innocent by reason of insanity?
00:09:37.000 Or would we say, yeah, the guy's clearly pretty messed up, but he is not so messed up as to meet the legal threshold of being without any liability for the crime?
00:09:48.000 Yeah, for sure.
00:09:49.000 And I think that that's why I say that it's a piece of evidence, but certainly not this positive as a piece of evidence and has to be taken in consideration with the whole psychiatric history.
00:09:56.000 And all the rest of it, your point about the kind of broader societal ramifications, there's one thing here that to me is the most disturbing, and that is turning everything into a societal problem itself.
00:10:06.000 So, is it possible that, let's say that you are an advocate for Lindsay Clancy?
00:10:09.000 You truly believe she went through a psychotic episode.
00:10:12.000 Why in the world does that implicate all of human society?
00:10:15.000 Why are you protesting?
00:10:16.000 Right?
00:10:16.000 Like, what are you protesting against?
00:10:18.000 This was the thing that sort of bewildered me when I first saw these protesters outside the courtroom.
00:10:22.000 Normally, when you have protesters outside a courtroom, they're arguing a fundamental miscarriage of justice is being done because society is corrupt in some way.
00:10:29.000 So if there's a highly polarized racial trial, people show up outside the courtroom to suggest that America's racial past is impacting the, the verdict on this case.
00:10:37.000 There was no implication that anything remotely like that was happening.
00:10:40.000 It just seemed like a, a kind of cry against the world that somehow all of society is responsible for Lindsey Clancy's psychotic.
00:10:49.000 I mean, again, if you're, if you're in favor of her, you believe she's psychotic.
00:10:52.000 So in somehow society is responsible for her psychotic state.
00:10:55.000 And like that's, that's so bewildering and bizarre to me.
00:10:57.000 I don't see how you can simultaneously argue.
00:11:00.000 That Lindsey Clancy was psychotic and also that society caused it.
00:11:03.000 Yeah, exactly.
00:11:03.000 Because if society caused.
00:11:05.000 Yeah, society caused her to be psychotic, then I mean.
00:11:08.000 Right.
00:11:09.000 They're arguing on the one hand, this is totally beyond the realm of logic and sense, but also this is to be expected because of the structural issues.
00:11:15.000 Well, those arguments are contrary to each other.
00:11:17.000 My most sizzling hot take on the whole thing is that this is just OJ 2.0 for the same reasons.
00:11:24.000 I have seen other people make the comparison, but the reasoning I think is important here.
00:11:28.000 In the OJ case, you had a black jury let.
00:11:30.000 This black criminal off the hook, even though we all know that he killed his wife and her friend.
00:11:34.000 And this came bizarrely at this moment when basically all of the racial problems had been fixed.
00:11:41.000 So all of the structural racism, all the things that activists were talking about had been fixed according to the left wing black activists.
00:11:50.000 They got the Great Society.
00:11:51.000 They got affirmative action.
00:11:52.000 They got lower policing in certain places.
00:11:55.000 They got on and on and on and on and on.
00:11:57.000 All of the issues.
00:11:58.000 They got the racial ideology put into schools.
00:12:00.000 They got all of it, but it didn't seem to fix all the problems.
00:12:03.000 And so the black activists, the Al Sharpton types, came out and said, you know what?
00:12:07.000 You need to let us get away with murder.
00:12:10.000 That was my read on OJ.
00:12:11.000 And I think it's the same thing here.
00:12:13.000 There's that very famous study from Yale, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, which shows that as feminism advanced, women got less happy, both relative to men and in absolute terms.
00:12:22.000 And So, you've got women who have gotten all the things that the feminists said they wanted.
00:12:28.000 They are now the majority of students in universities.
00:12:31.000 They're now the majority of workers in the workforce.
00:12:33.000 They've got all the rights and the abortion and the contraception and on But there still seems to be this problem.
00:12:40.000 And it seems to me that the feminist activists here are coming out and saying, you got to let us get away with murder.
00:12:46.000 They're asking for the, even in principle, the greatest possible license that you could have.
00:12:52.000 That's the ideological dynamic that I see playing out here.
00:12:55.000 And there are a lot of people who are under the sway of liberal ideology.
00:12:59.000 Yeah, no, I mean, I totally agree that to me, the most controversial aspect of this trial was not the trial itself.
00:13:05.000 The most controversial aspect of the trial was everything that was happening outside the trial.
00:13:08.000 That was the stuff where I went around and said something is very unhealthy about this society.
00:13:08.000 Yes.
00:13:11.000 Because again, you know, the OJ case, everyone knew he was guilty.
00:13:14.000 In this particular case, I am not sure if I had been on the jury how I would have ruled.
00:13:18.000 So it's different just in the fact pattern.
00:13:19.000 But when it comes to the actual people outside who are saying it's absolutely clear, not only was she innocent, her lawyer is a hero on behalf of women everywhere.
00:13:27.000 It's like, what are you doing?
00:13:29.000 And of course, you do have to tie that into the broader left wing belief that somehow abortion is a sacrament.
00:13:35.000 I mean, clearly, this comes from the same sort of philosophy that suggests that the only important thing in life is the quote unquote woman's right to choose.
00:13:44.000 And it kind of, in very ugly fashion for some of these protesters, underscores something that pro life people have been saying for quite a while, which is, you know, we say there's no distinction between the pre born and the post born.
00:13:53.000 So if you're making that argument about the pre born, why aren't you making that argument about the post born?
00:13:57.000 And it seems to me that some of these women are, in fact, making this argument about the post born.
00:14:02.000 Yes, 27th trimester abortion, as we might call it.
00:14:04.000 And that people mocked us and they said that, you know, that was either dark humor or hysteria.
00:14:10.000 But of course, if you can kill a baby three seconds before he's born, there's no reason that you couldn't kill him three seconds after he's born or three months or three years, which is exactly what you saw play out here.
00:14:19.000 And by the way, that problem too has gotten worse because 20 years ago, you had Democrats saying abortion is bad, but we need to have it for some reason and it should be safe, legal, and rare, as the Clintons said.
00:14:29.000 But that's changed.
00:14:31.000 And now you have governors all around the country who are signing new laws, including in Massachusetts.
00:14:35.000 That says that you should have abortion up until the moment of birth.
00:14:38.000 Well, it's inevitable.
00:14:40.000 It is, it is a consequence of accepting that logic that you would excuse women for killing their kids after birth as well.
00:14:48.000 Well, that's Michael Moles.
00:14:49.000 I know that Michael has to run because he's got a busy day ahead.
00:14:51.000 Michael, appreciate the time.
00:14:52.000 Rare occasion where you and I appreciate each other.
00:14:54.000 So once every 10 years, I'll take it.
00:14:57.000 That's pretty good.
00:14:58.000 Good to see you, sir.
00:14:59.000 Exactly.
00:15:00.000 All right.
00:15:00.000 Michael, appreciate it.
00:15:01.000 All right.
00:15:02.000 First, we're going to get to everything involved here.
00:15:04.000 We're going to break down the legal case.
00:15:05.000 We're going to get to all the charges.
00:15:07.000 We're going to get to.
00:15:07.000 Again, why I think that had I been on the jury, I'm not sure which way I would have ruled, honestly.
00:15:13.000 First, here is a fairly remarkable statistic.
00:15:15.000 In a recent industry survey, PureTalk was the only wireless company to receive five stars in every single category coverage, support, value, and data, every category.
00:15:22.000 That raised an obvious question what exactly are the rest of us paying all this money for?
00:15:26.000 I mean, there are a lot of things in life where you're just paying too much money.
00:15:29.000 But the reality is, when it comes to your wireless service, you should not be, and PureTalk can fix that for you.
00:15:33.000 We've somehow been trained to believe that wireless has to be both expensive and complicated, but PureTalk says something different.
00:15:38.000 They say good service, good value.
00:15:40.000 No reason to keep paying more simply because you've always sort of done that thing.
00:15:43.000 Right now, there's an especially good reason to switch.
00:15:46.000 For a few more weeks, Pure Talk is offering unlimited data for just 15 bucks a month for your first three months.
00:15:50.000 After that, get unlimited data for as low as $34.99 a month.
00:15:53.000 Go to puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
00:15:53.000 No contract.
00:15:55.000 Make the switch to my favorite wireless company.
00:15:57.000 I've been using them for years.
00:15:58.000 There's a better wireless choice out there at just 15 bucks a month for your first three months.
00:16:02.000 Now's an excellent time to choose Pure Talk again.
00:16:04.000 That's puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
00:16:06.000 Puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
00:16:08.000 Go check them out right now and get the best deal available on your wireless service, puretalk.comslash Shapiro.
00:16:14.000 Okay.
00:16:14.000 So, as we announced right at the top, Judge William Sullivan.
00:16:19.000 Announced that there was a mistrial in the case.
00:16:21.000 Again, the defense were still waiting.
00:16:23.000 They're trying to appeal it up to a higher level to see if they can avoid the mistrial and get the one outstanding juror to flip or at least be kicked out in favor of another juror who will then fully acquit.
00:16:32.000 Here was the judge announcing.
00:16:35.000 The jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them.
00:16:43.000 But under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial.
00:16:50.000 Well, I'd like to be heard, Your Honor.
00:16:53.000 Well, that's why I asked you before, but go ahead.
00:16:55.000 Well, I just got to that first one.
00:16:57.000 I didn't get to the other one.
00:16:59.000 Your Honor, I would suggest to the court that, as we are pretty much all familiar with, under Karen Reed versus the Commonwealth, the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice George's back in February of 25 held that under Rule 27B of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, quote, gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury.
00:17:25.000 Now, again, we're going to go through the charges because I think that they're the hot takes, and we can try to speculate that people immediately jumped to the defense of Lindsey Clancy here and that they were doing so for feminist reasons.
00:17:37.000 But I'm just going to go through what we know and what we don't know.
00:17:40.000 And again, one of the problems here is that Massachusetts law is extraordinarily burdensome for the prosecution.
00:17:46.000 Very, very burdensome for the prosecution.
00:17:48.000 So I'm going to go through the mandatory jury instructions in Massachusetts.
00:17:51.000 So here is what judges tell the jurors to consider.
00:17:54.000 Quote, the burden is on the commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her.
00:18:00.000 What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
00:18:02.000 The term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined.
00:18:06.000 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
00:18:13.000 A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.
00:18:21.000 When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs.
00:18:26.000 Based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.
00:18:31.000 Now, the key sort of terms there abiding convictions.
00:18:34.000 This means you have to have a lasting, settled belief in the truth of the charges.
00:18:38.000 You have to have moral certainty, not just a moral feeling like certainty.
00:18:43.000 Probability is not enough.
00:18:44.000 Proponderance of the evidence is not enough.
00:18:46.000 It's also not imaginary.
00:18:47.000 It's not like aliens could have come down and killed their kids, right?
00:18:50.000 Or maybe it was her husband.
00:18:51.000 Like you actually have to have a reasonable doubt, a reasonable doubt.
00:18:55.000 So here was the judge.
00:18:56.000 He was.
00:18:57.000 Called back yesterday to try and force them into a verdict by reading the reasonable doubt rules again.
00:19:02.000 Here's what he had to say.
00:19:05.000 What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
00:19:08.000 Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it's not easily defined.
00:19:13.000 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
00:19:23.000 A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, You have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.
00:19:36.000 When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs, based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.
00:19:49.000 I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
00:19:59.000 Okay, so again, it's not clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence.
00:20:04.000 It's not total certainty.
00:20:06.000 And so what actually happened in the lead up to all of this?
00:20:09.000 Is that the Clancy defense attorney?
00:20:12.000 The judge had said that it was basically 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal.
00:20:15.000 And Clancy's defense attorney asked for the holdout juror to be removed, supposedly for not considering what reasonable doubt actually means.
00:20:22.000 Here's what that sounded like this morning.
00:20:24.000 And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame.
00:20:34.000 It's a real shame.
00:20:36.000 And that's why I object to the court's ruling.
00:20:38.000 I request that we have further inquiry.
00:20:41.000 I request that my motion is to remove this jury.
00:20:46.000 Okay, well, then the judge's like, what do you want me to do here?
00:20:49.000 The judge was not particularly happy with the defense attorney in large swaths of this case.
00:20:55.000 Specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully.
00:21:02.000 I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?
00:21:04.000 Yes.
00:21:05.000 You did it yesterday.
00:21:06.000 You did it soft.
00:21:07.000 You didn't do it forcefully.
00:21:08.000 And I'm asking, maybe you want to do it forcefully.
00:21:09.000 What do you want me to do?
00:21:10.000 I want to get a brass band.
00:21:12.000 I read the instruction.
00:21:14.000 As written by the SJC.
00:21:17.000 The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.
00:21:22.000 I'm not an actor.
00:21:23.000 I've just given the instructions.
00:21:25.000 Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue.
00:21:32.000 The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt.
00:21:40.000 And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I note my objection.
00:21:44.000 But just in case the record is clear, I am.
00:21:47.000 Specifically, not glossing over this issue.
00:21:51.000 I have thought about this issue.
00:21:55.000 Okay.
00:21:55.000 So, anyway, bottom line is likely mistrial 11 to 1, barring some sort of last minute appeal.
00:22:01.000 So, I'm going to go through the elements of the case.
00:22:03.000 Because, again, I do not think this case is super duper easy.
00:22:06.000 I don't, actually.
00:22:08.000 I know that a lot of people who want to jump to it's super easy.
00:22:10.000 I just don't.
00:22:11.000 Were I on the jury, I would be extremely conflicted.
00:22:14.000 Extremely conflicted.
00:22:15.000 Obviously, I'd want to convict her based on the egregious and extreme.
00:22:19.000 And vile crimes that she committed against her own children.
00:22:23.000 The insanity defense and the standards for that in Massachusetts are particularly strong in favor of the defense.
00:22:27.000 So, the counts of murder, there are three counts of murder.
00:22:30.000 The prosecution under the law in Massachusetts must establish the core elements for each child unlawful killing, that Clancy killed the kids, okay, undisputed.
00:22:39.000 Mal's aforethought that she acted with legal malice, intent to cause death, intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and intent to commit an act that a reasonable person would know creates a plain and strong likelihood that death would result.
00:22:51.000 So, it's the malice aforethought, the intent element here, that is the one that is under consideration.
00:22:57.000 Because when it comes to intent, now you have to determine whether the person is in their right mind.
00:23:03.000 The physical act is not in dispute, the interference with the person's breathing is not in dispute.
00:23:10.000 The intent is in dispute.
00:23:13.000 The intent is in dispute.
00:23:16.000 So, the defense presented the insanity defense.
00:23:20.000 Now, the insanity defense in Massachusetts is different than it is in most other jurisdictions in the United States.
00:23:24.000 The insanity defense in Massachusetts suggests that it is the job of the prosecution to prove sanity, not the job of the defense to prove insanity.
00:23:36.000 So, the Commonwealth versus McCool standard from 1967 says that a defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the offense and as a result of mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, have the cognitive ability to meaningfully understand their action was wrong or illegal.
00:23:56.000 And the volitional ability to control their behavior, even if they knew it was wrong.
00:24:01.000 So they have to lack capacity to control their behavior and also to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct.
00:24:07.000 Now, this doesn't count for voluntary use of drugs, it doesn't count for DUI, it doesn't count for antisocial conduct.
00:24:13.000 And Massachusetts law distinguishes to know from to appreciate.
00:24:17.000 So it's not that you know that your action is wrong, you have to appreciate that your action is wrong.
00:24:23.000 So what does that mean?
00:24:24.000 You have to have a meaningful understanding of the legal or moral significance of the conduct.
00:24:28.000 So, for example, Let's say that somebody is psychotic and they believe that God has commanded you to kill your kids because they are possessed by demons and killing them saves them.
00:24:37.000 So, in that case, the person might know that murder is wrong, but they might believe that psychosis, because of the psychosis, that God's command supersedes that morality.
00:24:48.000 So, you might not appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct.
00:24:50.000 That would be the example.
00:24:51.000 Okay, in just a second, we'll get into how the prosecution and defense cases fit into all of this, and we'll be joined by Lyndon Blake.
00:24:58.000 First, you know, when it comes to our health, Obviously, there are a lot of health products out there.
00:25:04.000 Most of them on the back of the bottle, there's a bunch of stuff that you don't understand.
00:25:06.000 That's not true for Balance of Nature.
00:25:08.000 Balance of Nature has been keeping people healthy since 1997.
00:25:11.000 They've served more than 3 million customers, and hundreds of thousands of customers take the whole health system every single day.
00:25:17.000 Well, I mean, with health products, trying something once is easy.
00:25:19.000 Sticking with something, that's the hard part.
00:25:21.000 The reason I think people stick with Balance of Nature for that long, pretty straightforward.
00:25:24.000 They've made the routine to stay healthy pretty simple.
00:25:26.000 The whole health system brings together 47 ingredients of real whole fruits, veggies, spices, and fibers.
00:25:31.000 The routine is three fruits capsules, three veggies capsules, two scoops of fiber and spice.
00:25:35.000 That's it.
00:25:36.000 No elaborate morning ceremony, no 20 bottles lined up across your kitchen counter.
00:25:39.000 It fits into real life.
00:25:40.000 If you've been hearing about balance of nature from me for a while, I'm thinking maybe I'll try that at some point.
00:25:44.000 This is your invitation to finally see what it is about.
00:25:47.000 Every order when you use my code Shapiro comes with a free guiltless snack.
00:25:50.000 Trust me, everybody loves the guiltless snacks.
00:25:52.000 They are great.
00:25:53.000 Again, look, I have it right here.
00:25:54.000 I have it right here beside me, keeping me healthy.
00:25:57.000 We cherish our balance of nature.
00:25:59.000 Go to balanceofnature.com today, subscribe to the whole health system or any other subscription, get an additional 10% off with promo code Shapiro and use code Shapiro.
00:26:07.000 They'll send you that free guiltless snack with your order.
00:26:08.000 balanceofnature.com, code Shapiro.
00:26:10.000 We appreciate all of our advertisers.
00:26:11.000 It allows us to bring you the content that you want.
00:26:14.000 And one of those advertisers that we appreciate is Golden Crest, because as we talk about a lot on the show, our government is fiscally irresponsible.
00:26:21.000 And that means eventually, pretty much everything is going to inflate.
00:26:24.000 Well, it turns out the thing that has never been worth zero is gold.
00:26:27.000 Central banks around the world bought a record 289 tons of gold last year, last quarter, rather.
00:26:32.000 That's up 62% from a year ago.
00:26:34.000 Meanwhile, JP Morgan is forecasting gold at six grand an ounce by Q4.
00:26:37.000 Citibank has put a $90 target on silver.
00:26:40.000 I'm not making those predictions.
00:26:41.000 They are.
00:26:42.000 Again, diversification, just a smart strategy.
00:26:44.000 Physical gold is remarkably simple.
00:26:46.000 Washington can run more trillion dollar deficits and the Fed can expand the money supply.
00:26:50.000 You can't just print gold.
00:26:52.000 If you've been thinking about owning physical gold or silver, check out Golden Crest.
00:26:55.000 They've made the buying process really straightforward, transparent pricing, widely recognized liquid coins, zero buyback fees when you want to sell.
00:27:02.000 And when you call, you're talking to a real human, not some enormous call center.
00:27:05.000 For retirement accounts, metals can be stored at Delaware Depository.
00:27:08.000 Golden Crest offers free insured shipping and free IRA storage on qualifying purchases right now.
00:27:13.000 Get a free 2026 info kit or a free portfolio review plus up to 25 grand in free silver on qualifying purchases.
00:27:19.000 Call 888 429 3999.
00:27:21.000 Text Ben to medals at 638 257 or go to goldencrestmedals.comslash Ben.
00:27:25.000 All right, we're joined on the line by Lyndon Blake.
00:27:28.000 She's a Daily Wire reporter and host of that.
00:27:29.000 So, Colonel Lyndon, thanks so much for the time.
00:27:32.000 So, Lyndon, obviously, we are awaiting sort of the final mistrial ruling.
00:27:34.000 What do you make of the mistrial?
00:27:37.000 Yeah, I think this is where we've been heading since we broke for last weekend.
00:27:41.000 I don't think there's any way that this jury stayed off their phones.
00:27:45.000 They were not sequestered.
00:27:46.000 I think they were all in the weeds, even though they have said over and over again under oath that they were impartial, they were unbiased in this.
00:27:53.000 But this case has really turned into a disaster.
00:27:57.000 And even Kevin Reddington earlier this morning told Brian Inton, a reporter in the courtroom, that he would not do any emergency order to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts because it would be a waste of time.
00:28:08.000 Well, when the rubber met the road and Judge Sullivan said mistrial, he filed that emergency order.
00:28:15.000 And now I think it is going to be a waste of time.
00:28:18.000 I think nothing is going to stop this from being a mistrial.
00:28:21.000 And then we start getting to the weeds of who does this new trial kind of favor?
00:28:26.000 Prosecution or the defense?
00:28:28.000 Will there be a plea deal?
00:28:30.000 I don't think so.
00:28:30.000 I think the prosecution will retry this and try to put Lindsey Clancy behind bars for the rest of her life.
00:28:36.000 I mean, it'll be very interesting to see how the prosecution attempts to do that.
00:28:40.000 Because again, when it goes 11 1 against you, that's a pretty good indicator that your case is very difficult.
00:28:46.000 I mean, I've been discussing the standards of Massachusetts law here on the program.
00:28:49.000 And the reality is that Massachusetts law is very much biased in favor of the defendant, particularly when it comes to the insanity defense, because the prosecution has the burden of proving.
00:28:57.000 That she was sane, the defense does not have the burden of proving that she was insane at the time of the killings.
00:29:03.000 That's a very high standard of proof, particularly when, again, as we've been discussing, she not only killed her three children, she then did superficial cuts to her arms, her neck, and tossed herself from a second story window and ended up permanently paralyzed.
00:29:14.000 So I think that when most people see that, even just on a colloquial level, you think, that person seems crazy to me.
00:29:19.000 I mean, that seems like not the behavior of a not crazy person.
00:29:22.000 And so when you start trying to fit that into what was she doing, does it fit within psychosis?
00:29:27.000 That's a burden that's very hard for the prosecution to overcome.
00:29:30.000 What do you think the prosecution will take away from the first trial?
00:29:32.000 What lessons do you think they will have learned that they think will allow them to do better in a second trial here?
00:29:38.000 They may need to get more witnesses.
00:29:40.000 I know a lot of their witnesses were critiqued throughout the trial, and especially how the prosecution handled their questioning of the witnesses.
00:29:47.000 I think it was very hard to follow.
00:29:48.000 I don't think they made a lot of direct points until the closing arguments, which again, you think the jury, that's one of the last things they heard, but they've been sitting there for a month going over.
00:30:00.000 300 exhibits listening to more than 80 people give their testimony.
00:30:04.000 And I just don't think the prosecution held control in the courtroom throughout the testimony portion.
00:30:10.000 I think Kevin Reddington controlled the courtroom.
00:30:12.000 I think he came on very strong.
00:30:14.000 I think he's the one that kind of ended on a low note, didn't end on his best closing argument that I'm sure he would have hoped for.
00:30:23.000 But I think this mistrial is a huge win for the Clancy defense, for the Clancy camp.
00:30:29.000 I mean, this, you would Think until yesterday, which they all but told us it was 11 to 1, the 11 being not guilty by reason of insanity, you would think it would be more split than that.
00:30:40.000 And a lot of experts thought it would be more split than that.
00:30:43.000 But when you're sitting in there and listening and you talk about the burden of proof being on the prosecution, and this is beyond a reasonable doubt, they, in a lot of experts' eyes, did not meet their burden of proof.
00:30:58.000 Yes, they said she sent her husband out.
00:31:00.000 That was weird that she planned to do that.
00:31:02.000 But there's no blood test, there's no test to See that moment where you're in your right mind.
00:31:08.000 And so it's just been so wishy washy this entire time.
00:31:10.000 Like you and I have said from the beginning, it is very, very hard to kind of get into the mindset and make yourself see one way or another because it is someone's state of mind.
00:31:22.000 I thought at the beginning, not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:31:27.000 Closer we got, I was like, okay, the prosecution's maybe making some leeway.
00:31:31.000 And then after they broke for last weekend, this entire week has been one we've seen it.
00:31:36.000 The jury has been like, we can't make a decision.
00:31:39.000 And Judge Sullivan has sent them back twice and now they're at a dead end there.
00:31:43.000 So that's why we're here at Mistrial.
00:31:47.000 Yeah, Lynn, I'm trying to be ruthlessly honest with myself on how I would have ruled had I been on the jury.
00:31:51.000 And again, given the legal standards, I do not believe that the prosecution met the burden of proof.
00:31:54.000 I just don't.
00:31:55.000 I think that the prosecution had a very difficult time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not have any sort of psychotic episode sufficient to kill her kids.
00:32:05.000 And especially given the fact that kind of the fact pattern that they were trying to establish, which is that there was planning that went into the murders.
00:32:11.000 I mean, clearly there was planning that went into the murders.
00:32:11.000 Obviously, there was.
00:32:14.000 But I mean, knowing people who have psychiatric problems, I can just tell you that these things are not mutually exclusive.
00:32:20.000 I mean, people who are psychotic do actually have very often the capacity to plan to do pretty terrible things that don't lie within the realm of the moral.
00:32:29.000 And so, this is to me, so much of this comes down to we are not good at psychiatry.
00:32:35.000 Psychiatry is a really rudimentary field of medicine.
00:32:39.000 When you have doctors who are sitting there testifying as to she had bipolar one, no, she had bipolar two, it was postpartum depression.
00:32:45.000 Maybe it wasn't postpartum depression.
00:32:46.000 Maybe it was just psychosis.
00:32:48.000 Maybe it was a manic episode as part of an undiagnosed bipolar condition.
00:32:51.000 Like, we are now just using a bunch of labels that are variously applied by different psychologists and psychiatrists to describe the events.
00:32:59.000 And I think that in the end, if you're sitting in the jury room and the question that you're being asked is, was it, was this a planned murder of her three children without, with full understanding of the moral culpability of what she was doing beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was wrong?
00:33:16.000 Again, it's, it's hard for me to get there, even as, and this is why, yeah, I think a lot of the hot takes, which are like, oh, she was 100% guilty and anybody who thinks otherwise.
00:33:24.000 I mean, again, I can see why, why people would, Want to rule that she was guilty.
00:33:27.000 I could see that.
00:33:29.000 I could be convinced, possibly.
00:33:31.000 But the immediate jump to everyone who thinks that this is a hard trial must be on the side of the feminist loonies who are outside protesting in Lindsey Clancy's favor.
00:33:40.000 I just don't think it breaks down quite that simply in the actual courtroom.
00:33:44.000 I agree 100%.
00:33:45.000 I mean, there is a big difference of these people that I guess have no jobs going out there in their pink t shirts, just having a pep rally for Lindsey Clancy, and then people being like, wow.
00:33:57.000 This is a tragic event.
00:33:59.000 Listen to the feminist icon, as they call Kevin Reddington.
00:34:01.000 He's like, there is no winners here.
00:34:03.000 There's no winners in this trial.
00:34:05.000 This is a travesty.
00:34:07.000 So the people celebrating Lindsay, treating her like someone they want to be like, I would never want to be like Lindsay Clancy.
00:34:13.000 This is horrible.
00:34:15.000 She did the worst possible thing imaginable.
00:34:17.000 And now she's in a wheelchair for the rest of her life.
00:34:19.000 She's going to be locked up potentially somewhere for the foreseeable future, whether that is a mental institution or a jail cell.
00:34:26.000 I think there is a spectrum of this and people that are just so far on each side.
00:34:31.000 Are not looking at the facts of the courtroom.
00:34:32.000 And I think a good point to pointing out, did she know right from wrong?
00:34:37.000 Yes, we know that when she was in the hospital, that she asked for a lawyer.
00:34:41.000 Well, at that point, she knew what she did was wrong.
00:34:46.000 But again, we're not talking about then.
00:34:49.000 We are talking about that hour and a half on January 24th, 2023, when this took place.
00:34:58.000 And I thought the defense's best argument, which they really didn't bring it up during closing arguments, was her heart rate.
00:35:04.000 At 57 beats per minute during that entire thing.
00:35:08.000 Who in the world, unless you are psychotic, can kill your three children, strangle them with force, and your heart rate is the same beat if you were in a lazy river?
00:35:24.000 Well, that's Lyndon Blake.
00:35:24.000 You can go check out her show, That's So Criminal, and all of her reporting over at Taylor.
00:35:27.000 Lyndon, appreciate the time.
00:35:29.000 Of course, Ben.
00:35:32.000 So I want to get into what the prosecution was arguing.
00:35:35.000 So the prosecution was basically arguing that Clancy was, in fact, depressed, but she was not psychotic, that she knew what she was doing.
00:35:41.000 That she understood that it was wrong the whole time and that she deliberately executed a plan to kill her kids and herself.
00:35:46.000 Now, again, that last part that she had a plan to kill her kids and herself, but she was not psychotic to the extent required by law, that is a hard job.
00:35:54.000 Because, for example, if you say, if I kill the children, I can kill myself, then, which is what the prosecution was saying, she wanted to commit suicide, but she felt she couldn't do it until after she killed the kids.
00:36:06.000 So she knew it was wrong and she did it, right?
00:36:08.000 That would be, she knew she was wrong and she did it.
00:36:10.000 But if you said, A psychotic delusion made me believe that killing my kids was necessary or morally right, then theoretically that is psychotic, right?
00:36:18.000 Again, these are very fine distinctions in a very rough trial.
00:36:22.000 Here was the prosecution's forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Gregory Sadhoff, saying that she did this in methodical fashion.
00:36:31.000 Did the defendant tell you that the voice told her where to kill the children?
00:36:37.000 No.
00:36:38.000 Did the voice tell her how to kill the children?
00:36:41.000 No.
00:36:42.000 Did the voice tell her what to use to kill the children?
00:36:45.000 No.
00:36:46.000 Did the voice tell her in what order to kill the children?
00:36:50.000 No.
00:36:51.000 Did the voice tell her where to try to kill herself?
00:36:55.000 Did the voice tell her in what way to kill herself?
00:36:55.000 No.
00:36:59.000 No.
00:37:01.000 The fact that the voice, according to the defendant, the voice didn't tell her any of those things, but instead just said, kill the kids so you can kill yourself.
00:37:10.000 Is that significant in your evaluation in any way?
00:37:13.000 Yes.
00:37:14.000 How so?
00:37:16.000 Well, in the.
00:37:19.000 Small amount of time that Ms. Clancy had in the home without her husband.
00:37:26.000 It was important in order to carry this out, as well as her suicide, to do this quickly, methodically, and the like.
00:37:38.000 Again, that's the case for the prosecution.
00:37:39.000 Now, if the jury believed that Clancy was experiencing genuine psychosis, whether it was caused by any of the aforementioned conditions, bipolar I, severe depression, postpartum illness, or anything else, drug interactions, And that she did not actually have the capacity required under Massachusetts law, she gets acquitted.
00:37:55.000 Again, this is why I say the burden of proof under Massachusetts law is very high.
00:37:58.000 If this has been tried in another state and the defense had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the other way that she was insane, it is quite possible that this verdict goes the other way.
00:38:10.000 I mean, she again does not need formally a bipolar I diagnosis or even a postpartum psychotic diagnosis.
00:38:14.000 The question is whether she was psychotic to the extent required by law at the time.
00:38:18.000 And again, as I've said, there are basically three major arguments the defense can make.
00:38:22.000 One is she tried to kill herself.
00:38:24.000 So, the fact that she tried to kill herself shows, presumably, that she was not operating at least presumptively within the rational framework.
00:38:35.000 Two is that she heard a voice.
00:38:36.000 Now, they're counting on the voice because if she was having a manic episode, that's very clear evidence, right?
00:38:41.000 Now, the problem with that is that she's making a claim that is utterly unfalsifiable.
00:38:44.000 You have no clue whether she heard the voice.
00:38:46.000 The only person who's ever said she heard the voice is Lindsey Clancy.
00:38:49.000 Pretty much everybody who talked with her before and after said that it.
00:38:55.000 There was no prior voice.
00:38:57.000 She's never had a voice since.
00:38:59.000 There are inconsistencies in her account.
00:39:02.000 And the third point that was being made by the defense is that she was worried about her medication interactions and that this is all part of a developing psychotic state.
00:39:12.000 But, you know, you can worry about your medication interactions and not be psychotic.
00:39:15.000 But again, this is where the burden of proof matters.
00:39:16.000 Burden of proof in law is super duper duper important.
00:39:19.000 If the burden of proof is on the defense, they're the ones who have to pick up the weight.
00:39:22.000 Here, the burden of proof was on the prosecution.
00:39:26.000 Now, again, there have been some takes that are kind of the other way from what I'm saying.
00:39:29.000 Miranda Devine over the New York Post said mental illness is not a defense for murder.
00:39:33.000 To be found not guilty, Lindsay Clancy had to be in the grips of psychosis at the time she strangled her three children, to the extent she did not know what she was doing was wrong.
00:39:41.000 There's been little compelling evidence for her, other than her inconsistent claim she heard a voice commanding her for the only 18 minutes it took to kill Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
00:39:49.000 The evidence is that she meticulously planned and carried out three purposeful killings, taking the children one by one to the basement where she laid them face down, overpowered their struggles, wrapped an exercise band around each little neck, and pulled tight until their bodies were lifeless and the blood vessels had popped in their eyes.
00:40:02.000 She then went upstairs and attempted suicide, leaving the gruesome scene for her husband to find when he returned from the errands she had sent him on.
00:40:08.000 Despite seeing multiple shrinks and going to the hospital three times, she had never been diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, just depression and bipolar disorder, a diagnosis that she and her husband apparently rejected.
00:40:17.000 And again, not uncommon.
00:40:19.000 This is what I've been saying.
00:40:20.000 I'm just going to keep beating the strum.
00:40:21.000 Psychiatry is an inexact science, it is highly inexact.
00:40:25.000 You can have a series of symptoms, and depending on how you personally describe those symptoms to the doctor, they will give you a different diagnosis.
00:40:31.000 And if you go to two doctors with the same symptoms, they may give you two separate diagnoses.
00:40:38.000 And Miranda Divine concludes she says, The psychiatric experts who gave conflicting evidence about whether she was in postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings.
00:40:46.000 But even if she was, psychosis did not automatically qualify her for legal insanity and absolve her of criminal responsibility.
00:40:51.000 All murderers are mentally ill to some degree.
00:40:53.000 And again, that is the case for the prosecution.
00:40:57.000 I'm not sure they overcame the burden of proof.
00:40:58.000 Matt Walsh has a similar take.
00:41:01.000 So he says that the sole juror is heroic because he believes this is a clear cut case.
00:41:06.000 And Matt says Clancy's entire insanity defense rests completely on the claim she heard a voice telling her to kill her kids.
00:41:12.000 The problem is one, there's no way to prove or disprove an imaginary voice.
00:41:15.000 Any murderer can make this claim.
00:41:16.000 If it counts as reasonable doubt, we can never convict anyone of anything ever again.
00:41:20.000 Now, again, it isn't really just that she said there was an imaginary voice or whatever.
00:41:24.000 And he's right.
00:41:25.000 Utterly disprovable.
00:41:27.000 However, when you combine that with her entire psychiatric history, it looks more plausible, right?
00:41:31.000 That's sort of the question.
00:41:32.000 Two, says Matt, she never reported this voice before or since the crime, strongly indicating that she made it up.
00:41:37.000 Again, that is the best case for the prosecution.
00:41:38.000 Matt is right about that.
00:41:39.000 And three, most importantly, even if she did hear a voice, why didn't she refuse to follow the command?
00:41:44.000 If a voice told me to murder my children, I would refuse.
00:41:46.000 If the voice threatened and harassed me, I'd still refuse.
00:41:49.000 Okay, now this is the part where I think Matt is not correct.
00:41:52.000 I mean, again, if you are psychotic, then your capacity to refuse things is very, very much down.
00:41:58.000 Like, very, very much down.
00:41:59.000 There are a lot of conditions, lots of them, where people do things that are not within rationality and they do not seem to have the capacity to stop themselves from doing it.
00:42:09.000 Anorexia is an example.
00:42:09.000 Right?
00:42:11.000 You might know intellectually that you are not, in fact, fat.
00:42:15.000 But you cannot stop yourself from starving yourself.
00:42:18.000 That's an actual psychological condition.
00:42:20.000 It is not just a matter of willpower.
00:42:23.000 Now, you might be able to curb that, but that is a reality.
00:42:27.000 So, again, I find this case extremely shaded.
00:42:33.000 Again, this is maybe the most unpopular opinion.
00:42:36.000 Sometimes reality is complicated.
00:42:38.000 And under the law, the prosecution had a rough case to prosecute here, a very difficult case to prosecute.
00:42:45.000 Now, if it had come down the other way and she'd been found guilty, I would be probably defending the guilty verdict as, you know, reasonable of the jurors to come to because I myself am divided on the question.
00:42:56.000 The one thing that, as Michael and I discussed up top, that is certainly true is the people who are going crazy in favor of the Lindsey Clancy is some sort of hero to women everywhere, or all women are suffering the issues of Lindsey Clancy.
00:43:09.000 That's not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense.
00:43:11.000 When you say that all women are suffering the kinds of stuff that Lindsey Clancy is suffering, and then you're making excuses, what you are saying is not Lindsey Clancy had psychosis and killed her kids.
00:43:20.000 You're saying she was reasonable and killed her kids, and she should be acquitted for that.
00:43:23.000 And if she was reasonable, just like every other woman, and killed her kids, and should be acquitted for that, Now, you're making a case that proves that basically any woman should be able to kill her kids at any time.
00:43:32.000 And that's a problem.
00:43:34.000 That is a real problem.
00:43:37.000 Again, some of the social media response here is pretty insane.
00:43:43.000 Here are some of the women outside the courthouse making the heart hands outside the Clancy courthouse.
00:43:53.000 Lindsay is in mental health.
00:44:03.000 Have this many women in one place at one time who may understand all of us.
00:44:10.000 Again, as there's one TikToker, apparently a sane TikToker, one of the few, Reed Choi, who points out that basically women are arguing against their own sanity at this point.
00:44:21.000 You don't understand what it's like to be a woman who is hormonal.
00:44:24.000 There needs to be empathy and she shouldn't be held liable for any criminal behavior.
00:44:28.000 Precisely.
00:44:29.000 I could not have summed it up better myself.
00:44:31.000 Who are you?
00:44:32.000 We are all the men ever before the 20th century.
00:44:35.000 Ew, no, you treated women as second-class citizens.
00:44:37.000 What I'm saying is that because women are hormonal deemed incapable of self-governance and therefore requires a male chaperone that can protect and guide the weaker sex.
00:44:47.000 Ew, no, that's so sexist.
00:44:48.000 That's not what I'm saying.
00:44:49.000 I'm saying because of our hormones?
00:44:51.000 Yes, because your hormones have become incapacitated, incapable of making rational decisions, and your emotions have begun to control you like a child.
00:44:58.000 And women should not be held accountable during such fits.
00:45:01.000 That is precisely what I'm saying.
00:45:04.000 Ew, stop saying what I was going to say like it was your point.
00:45:06.000 I'm just saying that this woman shouldn't be in a prison.
00:45:08.000 She should be put should be put in a mental asylum.
00:45:10.000 Yes, because women are not criminals.
00:45:11.000 Their hormones dictate their very lives.
00:45:14.000 They are slaves to their emotions.
00:45:16.000 And so they cannot choose.
00:45:17.000 They are forced to do whatever they feel because they are children incapable of controlling their emotions.
00:45:24.000 We agree.
00:45:26.000 Did I just F up feminine?
00:45:28.000 Again, this is like that, that, that woke.
00:45:31.000 It's like that woke and racist, you know, gripping hands.
00:45:34.000 It is true.
00:45:34.000 The radical feminists and, you know, utter sexists making kind of the same exact point.
00:45:39.000 Okay.
00:45:39.000 So obviously we'll keep tabs on the On the follow up as it develops.
00:45:44.000 We are still at this point awaiting the final mistrial announcement from the court, but it is essentially a foregone conclusion that that will happen.
00:45:53.000 And so, you know, we will continue to bring you updates, I'm sure, all through the weekend.
00:45:57.000 We have reached the end of the show.
00:45:58.000 We'll be back here Monday with more.
00:46:00.000 I'm Ben Spiro.
00:46:00.000 This is the Ben Spiro Show.