00:18:31.220If you're confused about how this works, then you are, and I mean this in a clinical sense, retarded, and you shouldn't be on a jury.0.99
00:18:43.820This alleged failure of prosecution to prove that Clancy was a bad mother came up multiple times from these women, and it comes up a lot among Lindsay Clancy supporters generally.0.99
00:18:55.980It's a major hangup for them, apparently. But the problem isn't just the fact that her bad
00:19:02.920mothering was very definitively proven by the fact that she killed her children. That's all0.99
00:19:08.160the proof that any reasonable person could ever need. The other problem is that the prosecution
00:19:13.860was illegally barred from presenting that kind of evidence anyway. The rules of evidence prohibit
00:19:21.960the prosecution from bringing on character witnesses to prove generally that Lindsay
00:19:28.060Clancy was a bad mother. Okay. They can't even do that. They're not allowed to. So if there's
00:19:34.860anyone out there, and I think it's very likely that there is, who knew Clancy and saw her being
00:19:43.360a bad mother prior to the killing, the prosecution could not, under the rules of evidence, present
00:19:50.420that person as a witness. I mean, it is highly likely that there are female acquaintances,
00:19:57.720friends of friends, who knows, in-laws, cousins, former classmates, former co-workers out there
00:20:04.380who, if they were asked and felt safe to speak freely, would tell you that Clancy was,
00:20:11.140in their hypothetical words, a total... Every woman has other women out there who would
00:20:17.920describe them that way. It is reasonable to assume that a woman who is also a mass murderer0.94
00:20:24.280certainly has a few of those other women out there. But the prosecution could not legally
00:20:30.620present any of that as evidence. And for good reason, because it wouldn't be evidence.
00:20:37.880You can be a total and kill your kids, or you could be a total and not kill your kids.0.96
00:20:43.300That's not really evidence of anything.0.83
00:20:45.780So these women on the jury decided the prosecution was not credible
00:20:49.640because it failed to do something that it was not legally allowed to do.
00:20:55.180They are criticizing the prosecution for following the law.
00:20:59.600They are claiming the prosecution should have defied the law
00:21:03.100and presented prejudicial, irrelevant character assassination witnesses.
00:21:08.960Something that if they had done that,0.99
00:21:11.220obviously these women would have condemned them for it anyway.0.92
00:21:14.940Because these women had already made up their mind.
00:21:17.940And it really didn't matter what the prosecution did or didn't do.0.95
00:21:22.280Fast food stops with the family are out of control.
00:21:25.500What used to be $20 is now $40 or $50.
00:21:28.320Keeping up with household expenses gets harder every month.
00:21:31.780If you're a homeowner sitting on soaring credit card balances,
00:21:34.280you've probably considered calling American financing.
00:21:37.440But then you hesitate thinking about the low mortgage rate you currently have.
00:21:41.760Hanging on to a low rate doesn't help if high-interest credit cards are 22%, 25%, or even 28% and eating up your monthly income.
00:21:50.080And that's where the numbers shift in your favor.
00:21:51.720American financing can offer mortgage rates in the fives.
00:21:55.940Use your hard-earned equity to wipe out high-interest credit card debt.
00:21:59.660Instead of making minimum payments on restaurant tabs for years, you could join thousands of homeowners saving an average of $800 a month with American Financing.
00:22:09.740No upfront fees, no pressure, no cost to find out your potential monthly savings.
00:22:14.800Plus, starting now could mean delaying up to two mortgage payments.
00:23:24.600I'm not going to relitigate my many criticisms of the insanity defense or the fact that Massachusetts law is extremely absurdly lenient to defendants to the point that, frankly, you know, if it's applied in a very liberal manner, as it has been here, it's hard to imagine any defendant ever getting convicted.
00:23:43.360Massachusetts, unlike most states, requires that the prosecution prove the defendant is not crazy beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:23:49.380So they have to prove a negative about what was going on in someone's mind beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:23:54.960The reason I'm not going to relitigate these legal criticisms is that based on their own comments,
00:23:59.960the jurors, frankly, didn't care about Massachusetts law anyway, one way or another.
00:24:05.200Nor did they care about the jury instructions. Watch.
00:24:08.180Ronnie talked a lot about how managing those deliberations was harder than her work as a fifth grade teacher
00:24:15.260And they confirmed there was one holdout juror
00:24:18.460I asked them what they thought of him being described by the prosecution as a rogue juror
00:24:27.720He really did not take anything that anybody said
00:24:33.440the nurses he he tried to ask a question about the medications and we went back to
00:24:41.320the report from South Shore Hospital we had the toxicology report we could see exactly the amounts
00:24:48.020the nurses in the room spoke to that and talked to that there were nurses on the jury yes
00:24:54.960and they spoke to that that specific thing that was a question that he had
00:25:00.560and he just completely disregarded the information that they gave.
00:25:06.260This is an astonishing admission, and she doesn't even realize it.
00:25:10.280And of course, neither does the NBC reporter.
00:25:12.180She's saying that when the lone holdout was refusing to acquit,
00:25:15.820the nurses on the jury tried to convince him that Clancy was not guilty
00:25:19.620using their medical expertise as nurses.
00:25:23.120So the nurses spoke to that, she says.
00:25:25.580This is completely obviously inappropriate based on the standard jury instructions in Massachusetts and every other state. Jurors are not allowed to consider expert analysis from other members of the jury. They're only allowed to consider the testimony of experts who testify on the stand along with any evidence presented at trial.
00:25:47.980Quote, no juror is better qualified to determine the truth of the facts in controversy or to deliberate upon a verdict than any other juror or solely because of that juror's occupation, education, experience, or any other characteristic.
00:26:00.360So that's from the model jury instructions.
00:26:01.900Jurors are allowed to use their own common sense and draw from various life experiences, but they're not allowed to act as an unsworn witness with any kind of special knowledge.
00:26:10.720Instead, they're supposed to analyze the testimony that was provided in the court, including the expert testimony.
00:26:15.660And the reason is simple. Experts in court are subject to cross-examination. Both sides can probe their credentials and the legitimacy of their findings. But in a jury room, if someone says, I'm a nurse, and here's the truth about postpartum psychosis, then other jurors are going to feel pressured to agree with them.
00:26:33.940it completely defeats the purpose of calling expert witnesses. It defeats the purpose of the
00:26:39.120trial. What's the point of having jurors listen to testimony if they're going to provide their
00:26:44.020own unvetted testimony in secret in the jury room? And by the way, the guy was completely
00:26:52.900right to ignore the nurses in the jury room because nurses don't really know much that's
00:26:58.240relevant to this case. Sorry. Most of them can't even prescribe medication. Didn't go to medical
00:27:05.540school. I mean, what is a random nurse in a jury room? Suddenly, how is that going to be a credible1.00
00:27:11.820expert on psychoactive drugs? You know, we're talking about nurses, school teachers, chefs.
00:27:19.820These women don't have any base of knowledge that gives them any secret insight, any additional1.00
00:27:24.220insight into this case at all. The whole thing is absurd. So what's so incredible about this juror's
00:27:30.720admission, which by the way is grounds for holding her in contempt of court, is that she doesn't seem
00:27:35.400to even realize what she's saying. It's not simply that these women are dumb. They're dumb, while1.00
00:27:41.100also believing that they're extremely intelligent and savvy. They've been convinced by a lifetime of1.00
00:27:45.900feminist propaganda that everything they say is a stroke of genius, and here we are.
00:27:51.300again these are the same women who think that the lone male holdout was the one who was ignoring the0.92
00:27:57.060law and bypassing the judge's instructions and the same breath they're admitting on camera that
00:28:02.460they tried to pull rank on this guy even if we assume that they're characterizing this male
00:28:08.320juror's statements fairly which they obviously aren't there's still no way to get around the
00:28:12.540fact that they tried to intimidate him they wanted to pressure the lone holdout to acquit
00:28:17.000And when that failed, they tried to have him thrown off the jury.
00:28:21.220Actually, for a while, it appears there was another holdout on the jury, at least one more.
00:28:26.360Before we get back to this NBC interview, I want to pull some footage, which is audio only, from a CBS phone interview with another woman on the jury.
00:28:36.060It was apparently the youngest woman on the panel.
00:29:12.040you know, she was not mentally healthy.
00:29:13.740she was someone that was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis
00:29:18.360so i really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out
00:29:24.920because at the end of the day there's there was so much doubt you know the prosecution to have a
00:29:32.200figurative you know smoking gun there was not a single moment throughout that presentation in
00:29:38.780that case that you could say oh yep 100% I'm certain she did it or that she didn't do it
00:29:44.860there's there's too much gray area um and eventually I just felt like the only way to
00:29:51.960get justice support for Cora Dawson and Callan and Patrick and her parents and everyone else
00:29:58.340that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed and there's no way she's
00:30:04.920going to help them present. So this woman says she went into deliberations thinking Clancy was
00:30:12.880guilty, but she switched to not guilty because it was the only way Lindsay would get the help
00:30:18.080she needs, quote unquote. That's how she wants to get justice for the murdered children and their1.00
00:30:23.660father. She's openly admitting, leaving aside the fact that, you know, the idea that getting her
00:30:29.840help means justice for the victims, like leaving aside how absurd that is and incoherent, the
00:30:36.700point is that she disregarded the law in order to ensure that Lindsay Clancy would get better0.84
00:30:40.580mental health treatment. Suffice it to say that on the jury, you are not supposed to be making
00:30:46.540decisions based on those kinds of calculations. You are there to judge whether Clancy was guilty
00:30:53.960or not, period. Your job is not to ensure that she gets the help she needs. That is not a legitimate
00:31:02.760legal factor to be weighed by the jury. In fact, the jury was explicitly instructed not to take
00:31:10.100that kind of thing into account, not to take potential punishments and consequences for
00:31:14.500Clancy into account at all. Their one single sole responsibility was to determine whether Clancy
00:31:21.720was criminally responsible for murder or not. Whether that determination would lead to her
00:31:27.340getting help or not was not only irrelevant, but it was a factor the jury was explicitly
00:31:32.780forbidden from weighing. But they did anyway. Now, to the extent that this woman actually talks
00:31:39.600about Clancy's guilt or innocence under the law, she says the following, quote,
00:31:43.860there was so much doubt the prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a
00:31:48.400single moment throughout the presentation of the case where you could say, yep, 100%, I'm certain
00:31:53.100she did it or that she didn't do it. There's too much gray area. Okay. So there's a lot to examine
00:32:00.000there. Starting with the fact that the prosecution's burden of proof is not to demonstrate
00:32:07.500with 100% certainty that Lindsey Clancy is guilty. That is not what proof beyond a reasonable doubt
00:32:15.240means. And this is not a minor detail. This is not semantics. The burden of proof is one of the
00:32:23.440most important issues in the trial. And this woman did not understand it. And again, this is ironic0.98
00:32:30.780because these women were making the claim that the lone male juror was the one who didn't
00:32:34.880understand the concept of reasonable doubt, but clearly they didn't. Because now they're giving
00:32:38.960these interviews all over national television where they state explicitly that they couldn't
00:32:43.420convict Lindsay Clancy because they weren't 100% certain she did it. Now, by the way, for the
00:32:49.580record, Clancy admits she did it. Her defense attorney admitted it multiple times during the
00:32:54.880trial. The only question under the law is whether she was in control of her actions and could
00:33:00.660appreciate that they were wrong. So this is a woman who deliberately sent her husband away from the1.00
00:33:06.840house so that she could slaughter her children alone. And then after she methodically committed0.63
00:33:10.700the murder, she threw herself out of a window in the most half-hearted suicide attempt imaginable.0.97
00:33:15.400Suddenly, she forgot how to kill a human being when it came time to kill herself.
00:33:19.600These actions make it clear that Clancy was in full control of her actions and appreciated
00:33:23.780that her actions were wrong. Clancy didn't mention psychosis a single time until she
00:33:29.100lawyered up. She never mentioned this alleged voice she heard until after the fact. So even
00:33:34.000under the law, even under Massachusetts law, as absurd as it is, it's clear beyond a reasonable
00:33:40.100out that Clancy was guilty. Is it 100% clear? Well, no, in the sense that nothing is 100%
00:33:51.120clear if you want to be philosophical about it. You know, I can't be 100% certain Clancy was
00:33:58.000criminally responsible because I can't be 100% certain that she even exists. Maybe this is all
00:34:04.500a simulation. Maybe we're plugged into the matrix. Maybe it's an elaborate dream. Okay, maybe pigs
00:34:11.340really can fly and they've been lying to us the whole time. Any of those things are technically
00:34:16.360possible, which is why it's a good thing the juries are not tasked with weighing every technical
00:34:22.320possibility. If they were, deliberations would take an eternity instead of just half an eternity
00:34:27.580like this jury. The question is about reasonable doubt. Yes, it's technically possible
00:34:35.000that Lindsay Clancy isn't responsible because maybe she was being mind controlled by aliens0.95
00:34:41.460or something. Like technically, is there a, is there like a 0.0000001% chance of some sort of
00:34:52.780sci-fi reality like that? Sure. Is it reasonable to assume that?
00:35:01.040No. Is it reasonable to have any practical doubt about her guilt? Are there any reasonable doubts?
00:35:10.100No. There is no reasonable doubt. The only doubt that you can have about Lindsay Clancy's guilt
00:35:16.300is the kind of doubt that you might have about whether you're going to walk outside
00:35:22.500and suddenly start floating into the sky.
00:35:25.320It could technically happen, but it's not a reasonable thing to worry about.
00:35:33.140But none of the jurors understand any of this.
00:35:36.120Instead, the more they talk, the more they make it clear that they rigged the case.
00:35:40.200So here's more from this same interview. Listen carefully.
00:35:43.440You know, the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side.
00:35:52.300So I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense.
00:35:57.040There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions.
00:36:11.140And, you know, even after that dynamite charge to be unable to, you know, self-analyze yourself and be like, okay, am I missing something?
00:36:24.580Now, I haven't really seen anyone else mention this, but she references the dynamite charge from the judge.
00:36:31.080That's the jury instruction the judge issued after the jury reported being deadlocked twice.
00:36:35.520The instruction is basically to go back to the jury room and really try hard to reach a verdict.
00:36:39.480was just one problem. The judge never called it a dynamite charge, nor did any of the lawyers in
00:36:45.400the case. It's a very strange term, very specific term to use if you think about it. Most people
00:36:51.560have no idea what a dynamite charge is in reference to a trial. But if you were on social
00:36:58.240media during the trial, or if you were watching court TV, then you heard dynamite charge mentioned
00:37:03.460hundreds of times. So it seems likely that this juror was violating another important rule,
00:37:10.560which is that she wasn't supposed to read or watch any outside information or analysis about the
00:37:14.740case. Not that there was really any doubt that that was happening anyway. It's one of the many
00:37:19.560reasons this jury should have been sequestered. Everything they were told by the judge or by
00:37:22.960witnesses in the case was quickly filtered through social media and court TV, in all likelihood.
00:37:27.940It was all corrupted. And it's a big deal because it makes the judge's instructions completely
00:37:32.840useless and now the jurors are coming out and admitting it without realizing it it's also
00:37:36.980likely if we're being honest that the jurors concocted the plan to oust the loan holdout by
00:37:40.720consulting outside sources i mean that could have happened at the very least the dynamite charge
00:37:45.000language would raise a question about whether this juror is at the again at the very least a true
00:37:50.000crime fan you know it's not like true crime true crime fan like women who are really into true
00:37:55.420crime will just kind of casually use this sort of like link legal language even though they're not
00:37:59.880lawyers, because they just watch this stuff all the time. And now this is in their vocabulary.
00:38:06.000But the problem is that a true crime fan should not be on this jury or any jury ever.
00:38:13.380But admittedly, in terms of egregious rule violations by these jurors, this is just the
00:38:17.040tip of the iceberg. So let's go back to the NBC interview we were looking at. Here's the jury
00:38:22.020foreperson, a retired fifth grade teacher, demonstrating her infinite wisdom. Watch.
00:38:29.880he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video
00:38:35.060of the interview. I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started
00:38:41.400filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually, there were three forms I had to fill out
00:38:47.100and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said,
00:38:53.080but I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:38:57.800Now, first of all, why exactly is the foreperson so excited by the prospect of a not guilty verdict?0.94
00:39:04.520Put aside the fact that she's excited about a child killer getting acquitted and potentially walking free in society in a few months or rolling free, at least as disgusting and pathetic, you know, as it is to be excited about that.
00:39:14.640The fact is, it shouldn't matter to her one way or another how the trial ends.0.89
00:39:20.120No one on the jury, especially not the foreperson, should be excited about any particular verdict or outcome.
00:39:24.640when a jury gets excited during deliberations, then by definition, something has gone seriously
00:39:29.400wrong. They're supposed to play the role of a neutral, serious arbiter. And this jury clearly
00:39:36.340did not fulfill that responsibility. What's evident in this clip, of course, is that the
00:39:41.660foreperson was excited because from the very beginning of this case, she wanted Lindsay
00:39:45.780Clancy to be acquitted. She had a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. She was eager to fill0.99
00:39:51.520out those forms and announce a not guilty verdict for the same reason she's giving these idiotic1.00
00:39:56.060interviews. She desperately wanted to be a hero for feminists everywhere, to establish the legal1.00
00:40:00.860precedent that they can murder their children at any age and get away with it. And she was thrilled0.98
00:40:05.840that for a brief moment, she thought her fantasy would become reality. Now, as for her claim that
00:40:11.820the jury admitted or the juror admitted that he had reasonable doubt, we have no idea if that's
00:40:16.000true or what the context was. But from this clip, it's clear that these female jurors didn't
00:40:22.320actually care about the guy's reasoning. By own admission, the moment she heard the word doubt,
00:40:27.680she started filling out the verdict forms for an acquittal. She wasn't interested in what doubts
00:40:32.680the lone juror may have had or how significant those doubts were. All she cared about was the
00:40:38.760end result. So when he told her that he wasn't going to vote not guilty, she became frustrated
00:40:43.520and angry. This was not a deliberation, in other words. They were trying to reach a particular
00:40:49.540result. At 18, people are expected to choose a career before they've had enough experience to
00:40:56.000actually know what kind of work suits them. And then if they reach 30 or 40 and realize they chose
00:41:01.680the wrong path, changing direction is treated like failure. Well, it isn't. What I appreciate about
00:41:06.720Grand Canyon University is that it understands education is not limited to the traditional path
00:42:58.180As the interview continued, that became more and more obvious.
00:43:01.000It also became clear that the DA badly miscalculated by putting two female prosecutors on the case.
00:43:07.560I mean, honestly, the prosecution had no chance anyway, based on what these jurors are saying.
00:43:11.720But we still need to talk about the assumption in the DA's office about how female jurors can be expected to behave in a murder trial like this one.
00:43:19.400So with that in mind, watch the juror's assessment of Kevin Reddington, who's the slimy defense attorney. Watch.1.00
00:43:26.060Here's what they had to say about Kevin Reddington and the defense.
00:46:36.980Kevin Reddington understands precisely how to appeal to women like this.0.90
00:46:39.840He'll pose for selfies outside the courthouse.
00:46:42.060He'll entertain all kinds of deranged theories about the case.
00:46:45.180He'll even badger witnesses and the judge during the trial.
00:46:48.900Reddington does not care about the integrity of the legal process or professionalism or
00:46:52.340anything you'd expect a lawyer to care about or hope that they would anyway.
00:46:55.700He's the perfect match for jurors who don't care about the law either.
00:46:59.580That's why he just went on Good Morning America to demand that Trump pardon his client, even
00:47:04.780though he obviously knows the president cannot pardon a state-level murder charge. Watch.
00:47:12.940What's next for Lindsey? I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to
00:47:20.260speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider
00:47:25.000this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon.0.96
00:47:34.780So that's totally ridiculous. Again, it couldn't even happen anyway. But the goal here is to bait Trump into talking about the case so that he can argue his client can't get a fair trial. It's all calculated and manipulative. It's behavior that repulses any well-adjusted person because it's so obviously dishonest.0.94
00:47:53.680but millions of women find this kind of lawyering to be compelling1.00
00:47:56.080because in their own lives, they're manipulative and dishonest as well.1.00
00:48:01.140I mean, that's the whole point of feminism, after all.1.00
00:48:04.020It's a license to strike back at the patriarchy by any means necessary.1.00
00:48:10.440These jurors are no longer hiding their commitment to this ideology.
00:48:14.060During the same interview, they told NBC that if there's a retrial,
00:48:17.700they're going to show up to the court to show solidarity with Lindsay Clancy.
00:48:23.680Presumably, they'll be wearing pink again, just like they did during the trial.
00:48:28.660Sue, all of our analysts on Commonwealth Confidential seem pretty confident there will be a retrial here of some kind.
00:48:35.340What did these jurors have to say about that likelihood?
00:48:39.840They were not necessarily supporting a retrial at all.
00:48:43.620One of the jurors was a little bit back and forth on it, but said all three of them, if Lindsay Clancy is brought for a retrial by D.A. Cruz, they will all of them be in the courtroom to support Lindsay Clancy.