The Matt Walsh Show - INSTANT REACTION： Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case

00:00:00.000 In today's uncertain economy, American financing is helping families find a way out of the high

00:00:05.760 interest trap. We're heading into summer, but the economic clouds aren't clearing for most

00:00:10.580 middle-class families. Between persistent inflation and the cost of daily life,

00:00:14.320 you're likely feeling the pressure. You've worked hard for your home,

00:00:17.600 probably have more equity than you realize, yet the summer surge is forcing many to rely

00:00:21.820 on credit cards. It's an exhausting cycle, but American financing understands that 2026 requires

00:00:27.240 a real strategy. That's why they have salary-based mortgage consultants with mortgage rates in the

00:00:32.520 fives. Their customers are saving an average of $800 a month by wiping out high-interest debt.

00:00:38.400 That's money that stays in your pocket to fight back against rising costs. No upfront fees,

00:00:43.360 no pressure. And if you start today, you could delay two mortgage payments. Call American

00:00:47.860 Finance today, 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.

00:00:57.880 The Lindsey Clancy trial has reached a conclusion, for now anyway, with a mistrial.

00:01:04.360 And I will give my instant reaction and analysis of this news, which comes to us after an absolutely bizarre and unprecedented string of events that are almost hard to believe.

00:01:14.400 But the only reason that we ended with a mistrial at the end of all this madness is simply because of the actions of a lone heroic male juror, as we now know.

00:01:24.460 A lot of people speculated the jury of nine women and three men would break down to men against women.

00:01:30.280 Well, it turns out we were right in assuming that every single woman on the jury would want to acquit a mother who brutally slaughtered her children.

00:01:36.920 But we were wrong to assume that all three men would stand strong for justice and common sense.

00:01:43.080 As it turns out, only one man did.

00:01:45.980 And because of this one man, Clancy did not get away, not entirely, not yet, anyway, with brutally murdering her three children. Apparently, only one male member of the jury was willing to reach the obviously appropriate verdict in this case, which is that there is no excuse, either legally or morally, for the premeditated and systematic execution of your children.

00:02:10.720 Based on all the information we have, this lone male juror was able to withstand a campaign of public intimidation by the defense attorney in this case, as well as the jury foreperson.

00:02:23.140 The nine women on the jury and the two other men were apparently not only willing to absolve Lindsay Clancy of these barbaric murders, but they were also willing to pressure the lone holdout when he didn't agree with them.

00:02:33.900 And thank God he fought back.

00:02:35.460 we simply cannot live in a country when murder is considered justifiable because a woman claims

00:02:42.160 that she was insane at the time. It's an incoherent standard, by the way, the insanity

00:02:46.260 standard, as we'll discuss in a moment. And at least for now, there's still a possibility that

00:02:51.400 Lindsay Clancy will face justice for what she did. We'll have to hear from the state about

00:02:56.160 if they're going to refile the charges and what the charges will be. And hopefully they do. And

00:03:00.840 the thing is, if you had asked me a week ago, I would have said that a mistrial in this case,

00:03:05.160 instead of a guilty verdict would be a travesty and a tragedy. And it is. I mean, it still is.

00:03:11.860 But now that we know that we were one sane member of the jury away from a full acquittal,

00:03:17.780 away from a woman admitting that she murdered her children and waltzing away scot-free,

00:03:22.880 the mistrial seems, in that case, by comparison, like something of a win. Or at least closer to a

00:03:29.820 win than the alternative. Clancy's odious defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, did everything in his

00:03:35.680 power to corrupt the process and force the acquittal by any means necessary. When the jury

00:03:40.780 returned today to say that they were still deadlocked, that the lone male juror was not

00:03:46.280 intimidated by Reddington or the foreperson, Reddington initially demanded the jury be sent

00:03:50.520 back to continue deliberations. In other words, he wanted the judge to tell the jury for a third time

00:03:56.340 that he would not accept a hung jury. And of course, that would be coercive and inappropriate,

00:04:02.560 so the judge declined. He announced his intent to declare a mistrial, and then Reddington walked

00:04:07.300 all over the judge and demanded an hour to file an emergency appeal before the trial was finalized.

00:04:14.760 Because you see, apparently when you don't get the verdict you want, you get to demand that

00:04:18.660 an appeals court remove whoever is on the jury that disagrees with you. You get to claim that

00:04:25.320 he's not following the law because he came to a different conclusion about the case.

00:04:30.560 And that logic makes perfect sense to Lindsey Clancy's lawyer and to the brain-rotted legions

00:04:36.040 on TikTok and a lot of people in the media too. And that's where the judge should have denied the

00:04:41.580 appeal and ended the circus for good. But instead, you know, he gave him an hour to do this appeal

00:04:47.480 on the absurd grounds that he, you know, that the lawyer didn't get the verdict he wants. And so he

00:04:52.340 gets to appeal it. And as if the appeal wasn't nonsensical enough on its face, it somehow gets

00:04:57.100 worse. So Fox News obtained the emergency appeal that was filed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

00:05:03.640 This again is from the defense. This is their appeal to try to stop the jury from being,

00:05:09.900 to try to stop the mistrial. And what they argue in this appeal, and I'm not making this up,

00:05:15.980 They argue that the lone juror is engaging in a line of reasoning which, quote, reflects a bias against those who are suffering from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

00:05:32.180 Yes, the defense seriously argued that by voting to send a woman to prison for killing her children, he was discriminating against the disabled.

00:05:41.680 this if you send a disabled person to court you know then you're discriminating i mean to send

00:05:47.800 them to prison you're discriminating against them i guess is the logic it's a total farce but this

00:05:52.100 is a farce that was allowed to play out in court the whole process was stalled just to allow all

00:05:57.660 this to happen and of course all for the sake of shielding a mass murderer from accountability

00:06:03.600 which i mean you could point out is the is the job of the defense attorney but even so it's a farce

00:06:10.560 And this is a recurring problem, by the way, in our legal system.

00:06:14.120 Whenever the most loathsome and obviously guilty defendants are put on trial, given enough time, the legal process itself inevitably becomes a farce.

00:06:22.480 It's very difficult to prosecute the dregs of society in an orderly and predictable fashion for the simple reason that the worst of the worst are very adept at finding ways to manipulate the system.

00:06:33.720 It wasn't too long ago that Somali fraudsters literally delivered a $120,000 cash bribe to a juror just before deliberations began in an attempt to secure a not guilty verdict.

00:06:46.200 They blew up the whole trial in the process.

00:06:48.500 This is a big challenge that prosecutors face when they're confronted with overwhelmingly evil defendants who tend to attract very depraved lawyers.

00:06:56.240 As the saying goes, you know, you can't wrestle with a pig without everyone getting dirty.

00:07:00.160 But even with this expectation in mind, especially over the past few days, the Clancy case devolved into a truly staggering, unprecedented display of corruption and lawlessness and moral rot.

00:07:14.980 Yesterday, as well as this morning, before we even get to the preposterous last-ditch appeal, Clancy's lawyer engaged in an overt campaign of mafia-like jury intimidation in an attempt to secure an acquittal for his client.

00:07:29.880 John Gotti would look at this trial and blush at the sheer audacity of Clancy's lawyer,

00:07:35.220 whose name is Kevin Reddington.

00:07:37.380 For whatever reason, Reddington was allowed in the middle of deliberations to publicly

00:07:40.580 accost a specific juror and tell the entire world that there's going to be an investigation

00:07:45.760 into this person's statements during deliberations.

00:07:48.860 And the only reason for this investigation is that the juror all by himself appeared

00:07:52.720 to be intent on convicting Clancy for the murder of her children, which is something

00:07:57.020 that I'm sure this member of the jury figured he had the right to do, like he's allowed to come to

00:08:01.600 his own conclusion, or so he thought. Today in open court, before the jury came back and a mistrial

00:08:08.320 was declared, Reddington made it clear that the holdout on the jury is a man. So he told

00:08:15.140 everybody that, which is a very specific piece of information because there are only three males on

00:08:19.520 the jury. And during the same hearing, Reddington berated the judge for failing to intimidate the

00:08:24.440 jury. He wanted the judge to scold them for not following the law, meaning not returning the

00:08:28.760 verdict that he wants. And to understand exactly what happened here and how unseemly and corrupt

00:08:32.920 it is, let's go back to the scene in the courthouse yesterday during the sixth day of deliberations

00:08:38.280 in the case. And by this point, the jury had already sent two notes to the judge indicating

00:08:42.540 that they were deadlocked. And in response to these notes, the judge followed established

00:08:46.380 procedure by telling the jurors to return to the jury room and try to reach a verdict if at all

00:08:52.100 possible. This is how the system works. It's not unprecedented. It is really stupid, but I mean,

00:08:58.140 this part, the system does work this way. The jury says they're deadlocked, they're sent back.

00:09:02.000 They say they're deadlocked again, they're sent back again. You know, this is how the system

00:09:05.760 works. It shouldn't work this way, in my opinion. If a jury says that it's deadlocked after hours

00:09:11.340 of deliberation, sending them back is just asking them, even if you say you aren't asking them this,

00:09:17.140 you are asking them to bully the minority into caving. If you don't want the minority to be

00:09:23.100 bullied into caving, then why would you force them to stay in deliberations after they've

00:09:26.960 considered the facts and deliberated and made up their minds? I mean, it's pretty absurd.

00:09:33.840 But in any case, if the jury had come back yesterday with a third note, insisting that

00:09:37.520 they were still deadlocked as they did today, then the judge would have declared a hung jury.

00:09:41.220 That's generally how it works because under our constitution, the judge is not allowed to hold

00:09:44.840 the jury hostage indefinitely. He can hold them hostage and he did in this case, but there's an

00:09:50.600 end point eventually. Um, and the jury in this case almost certainly knew that they, they, you

00:09:56.420 know, they're, they were not sequestered. So they had access to the internet. They would have known

00:10:00.920 that with just one more note, they could go home and return to their families. But instead of

00:10:05.960 sending another note indicating that they're deadlocked, the foreperson was apparently a

00:10:10.000 woman on the jury instead sent a note telling the judge that a particular juror wasn't following the

00:10:19.040 law on reasonable doubt. And somehow this person, the foreman, foreperson, whatever, only decided

00:10:26.940 to send this note on the sixth day of deliberations at the very last possible moment before mistrial

00:10:32.140 was going to be declared because of a hung jury. So we're led to believe that on the other five

00:10:37.180 days of deliberations, I guess this guy was following the law. And then on the sixth day,

00:10:42.160 at the most crucial moment, suddenly he's not following the law. You know, we're meant to

00:10:47.500 believe that somehow this other juror had announced his intention to disregard the law,

00:10:52.620 which of course is ridiculous. Okay. It's ridiculous to claim that he, that he, I mean,

00:10:57.660 we don't, none of us were there. It's highly implausible, implausible rather, that this guy

00:11:04.660 sat there and said, no, I'm not going to follow the law. I refuse to follow the law.

00:11:10.320 Now, he was following the law, but the law led him in his view, which was the correct view,

00:11:16.660 to a different conclusion. The other members of the jury didn't like that conclusion and neither

00:11:21.820 did the defense. So they attempted to berate and manipulate him into changing his mind.

00:11:27.340 and they failed. Thank God. This was a clear act of jury intimidation by the jury, the foreperson,

00:11:37.200 and in response, the judge did the appropriate thing. He took each member of the jury aside.

00:11:43.400 He reminded them of the law on reasonable doubt. He didn't single anybody out. He didn't put any

00:11:47.240 particular pressure on any one member of the jury. He asked all of them if they were going to follow

00:11:53.520 the law and they all said yes. But for Reddington, this wasn't nearly enough. He wanted the juror

00:11:58.740 removed from deliberations and replaced with an alternate, presumably so that all 12 jurors

00:12:02.560 could agree on a not guilty verdict. So he essentially made the claim that if a majority

00:12:07.060 of the jury wanted to vote another member of the jury off the island, then they should be allowed

00:12:13.460 to do that. Apparently juries in this country, you know, they should function like a reality TV

00:12:19.620 show, right? Like Survivor, where the least popular member gets voted off. And he's saying

00:12:25.420 that jurors should be able to say whatever they want to a judge to convince him to throw the lone

00:12:30.020 dissenting juror off the panel on the basis that he's supposedly not following the law.

00:12:35.000 You know, it's a funny thing when members of the jury accuse another member of the jury of not

00:12:38.640 following the law. Because first of all, if you know anything about juries, you know that they

00:12:42.280 don't understand anything about the law anyway. And they're happy to admit this right out in the

00:12:47.080 open. This was the George Floyd jury, just for example. Watch. We got to the point actually that

00:12:53.320 we realized for charge two, at some point, I think it was Jody, I'm pretty sure it was Jody,

00:13:01.660 said, wait a minute, does the intended act of harm have to be the death of George Floyd,

00:13:11.240 or can it be him not providing the life support? And it was like all of a sudden,

00:13:16.000 And light bulbs just went on for those people, I think, that were undecided or on the not guilty side.

00:13:23.060 Go ahead. I want to hear from you, Jody.

00:13:25.640 Why is it you brought that up?

00:13:27.420 I brought that up.

00:13:28.820 Tell me what you brought up and why.

00:13:30.520 I brought up to the fact that this is not what he did, but more or less what he didn't do.

00:13:35.860 He did not provide life-saving measures for George Floyd when he knew that the guy was in pain or needed medical attention.

00:13:46.800 Why do you think that was a light bulb?

00:13:48.560 Well, when we were in deliberations, and Jody did bring that up, and we did look through everything very, very carefully,

00:13:55.980 what I thought about is something that was said during the trial, and that is Minneapolis Police Department has a model.

00:14:02.720 And if I'm understanding it correctly, their model is in our custody, in our care.

00:14:08.880 George Floyd was in their custody. He was never in their care.

00:14:13.720 And that, for me, just it just hit hard. I don't feel like they ever cared for him.

00:14:21.260 The female jurors clearly dominated the deliberations there.

00:14:25.580 They explicitly decided to convict Derek Chauvin of murder, not because of what he did, but because of what he didn't do.

00:14:31.500 in other words they ignored the law they ignored what the charge actually was presumably because

00:14:38.420 they knew that george floyd had overdosed they knew chauvin didn't kill him but they thought

00:14:41.800 chauvin was an unsympathetic guy and uh they're probably advocates of blm or whatever so they

00:14:47.280 convicted him of murder anyway they don't mention any arguments about whether chauvin actually

00:14:51.940 caused floyd's death at any point in that 10 minute cnn interview they completely disregard

00:14:55.680 the fact that under minnesota law third degree murder requires the commission of some dangerous

00:14:59.640 intentional act by Chauvin. Instead, they made up a new law in which the omission of an act,

00:15:05.240 namely failing to care for George Floyd, could somehow qualify as an intentional action.

00:15:10.960 They never sent a single note to the judge about this, by the way. They just created

00:15:14.220 the law on their own. And the reason this verdict was not overturned, even after this CNN interview,

00:15:20.540 where the jury admits they didn't follow the law, is that jury deliberations are considered

00:15:24.660 sacrosanct in every court in this country, or at least they were, even when the jury admits on

00:15:30.580 national TV that they were not following the law and had no idea what the law even was.

00:15:34.720 The verdict still stands. The American legal system allows jurors to misunderstand the law.

00:15:41.860 That's a known risk of having random everyday people on juries, particularly the people who

00:15:45.900 are too dumb to get out of jury duty. You can make the case that, you know, that we shouldn't

00:15:52.180 have the system. You can make the case that there are some fundamental flaws with the system,

00:15:56.080 as we have. There are plenty of countries, including Singapore, as we discussed earlier

00:15:59.160 this week, that don't have the system, that they have judges decide the cases. But in our system,

00:16:06.120 juries decide guilt or innocence, and if they don't grasp the law, too bad.

00:16:11.680 So with this well-known limitation of our legal system in mind, what exactly happened

00:16:16.700 in the Clancy trial. Why might the juror in question have misunderstood the law in this case?

00:16:24.660 And how, given the nonsense that we allow juries to do every day in this country,

00:16:29.120 could this misunderstanding possibly lead to the member of the jury being dismissed from the case,

00:16:34.640 which is what they wanted to have happened? Well, we kind of start piecing all that together

00:16:42.620 yesterday thanks to this press conference Reddington gave outside the courthouse yesterday

00:16:47.020 because for some reason he's allowed to intimidate the jury. Again, they're not sequestered. Watch.

00:16:55.160 So the juror has been identified by the note from the foreperson and there will be an inquiry by

00:17:06.680 the judge tomorrow at nine o'clock. I don't know what his question is going to be. We'll have an

00:17:11.420 argument about it. I don't think it will be at the sidebar. I think it will be in open court,

00:17:16.280 which is my concern that we have our arguments in open court, but not at the sidebar. So I expect

00:17:23.060 that, and that's B-A-R, not B-A-H, okay? Is this one person versus all the rest? Is this one person

00:17:31.320 versus all the rest of the jury? Is it one person holding this up? Yeah, you heard the question.

00:17:35.720 It's basically that there's a person who has doubt, but will not listen to the judge's

00:17:40.620 instruction. So the defense attorney decided to wage a public pressure campaign against someone

00:17:46.940 on the jury during deliberations. I mean, this is insane. It's totally unprecedented.

00:17:52.440 They want to burn the whole system down for the sake of letting a woman get away with triple

00:17:55.940 homicide. This is textbook intimidation. He's publicly complaining about a specific juror and

00:18:01.640 falsely accusing him of not following the law. And again, doing this during deliberations.

00:18:07.480 But for a second, let's put aside the sliminess of this defense lawyer.

00:18:12.280 The key point in that footage is that he says one member of the jury has doubts, meaning

00:18:17.300 reasonable doubts about Clancy's guilt under Massachusetts law.

00:18:21.220 Despite those doubts, he was allegedly failing to follow the judge's instruction in the case.

00:18:25.720 He was ignoring the law, in other words, according to Reddington.

00:18:28.980 So he puts this jury on blast during deliberations and threatens this one specific guy with a

00:18:36.120 winch hunt. Well, why might this guy be interested in disregarding, quote unquote, the law of

00:18:44.580 Massachusetts? Now, I don't think that he did disregard it, but let's follow that thread for

00:18:49.700 the sake of argument. Okay, let's see. According to Massachusetts law, someone is criminally insane

00:18:55.780 if, because of some mental problem, they lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness

00:19:02.100 or criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

00:19:07.860 A defendant is considered not guilty if there's reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant

00:19:12.340 possessed this capacity in any way. And here's the important point. In Massachusetts, the

00:19:16.620 prosecution has to prove, the state, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

00:19:22.160 that the defendant was criminally responsible, meaning they have to prove the defendant

00:19:27.220 not just that he did the thing,

00:19:29.660 but that he did not have a serious mental defect

00:19:32.580 and that he retained the capacity

00:19:36.000 to appreciate his conduct

00:19:39.780 during the commission of the crime.

00:19:42.940 Okay, so basically the prosecution

00:19:43.780 has to prove a negative, basically.

00:19:46.940 They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

00:19:49.040 that she was not crazy,

00:19:52.000 even though crazy is something

00:19:54.320 that's going on inside her head.

00:19:57.220 So we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was going on inside her head in the moment when this crime occurred, when it was committed three years ago.

00:20:08.960 Well, the problem here, which should be obvious, is that there is doubt, there's at least doubt, some doubt, for every single homicide under this standard.

00:20:18.600 It is a ridiculous, unworkable standard because we don't know what's going on in anybody's mind beyond any doubt.

00:20:27.660 It's impossible to know.

00:20:30.100 No doctor can run a lab test or a diagnostic scan to determine whether someone could appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or whether they lack the ability to control their actions.

00:20:40.880 That's impossible.

00:20:42.180 Even if they were hooked up to a brain scan while they committed the murder, which nobody ever is, obviously, that still wouldn't prove beyond any doubt what was going on inside their mind.

00:20:52.660 And there's no testimony that can provide definitive proof on that point one way or another.

00:20:59.740 You know, if a woman goes to the shrink and says she's losing her mind and then she commits mass

00:21:03.160 murder, how exactly are we supposed to determine whether she was telling the truth? How are we

00:21:08.860 supposed to determine whether her medications caused her to do something when, you know,

00:21:13.720 no one understands how these medications even work in the first place? How a juror is supposed

00:21:16.960 to come to any kind of conclusion when the trial features 20 different experts, all of them saying

00:21:21.280 conflicting things about the state of this woman's mind at the time of the murders.

00:21:25.120 You know, there's no getting around the fact that doubt and maybe reasonable doubt,

00:21:29.380 depending on how you define reasonable, can theoretically apply to, I mean, if you apply

00:21:35.920 it very liberally to any case, you can contort your reasoning in such a way as to excuse pretty

00:21:41.580 much any homicide that remotely resembles this case or any other case. Because you can never

00:21:48.640 know for sure what's going on in someone's mind. That's the point. And that's why the insanity

00:21:53.380 defense itself should be abolished entirely. It's totally incoherent, as I've said before.

00:21:58.640 We need to get these psychiatrist quacks out of the court system entirely. It's an absolute farce

00:22:04.120 that a person can commit murder, and then the defense can drag in a bunch of random psychiatrists

00:22:09.780 to perform some retroactive mind-reading stunt, right? Like they're an act on America's Got Talent

00:22:17.840 or something and, you know, doing card tricks, peering into the mind of this person three years

00:22:25.040 ago to determine what was going on inside the consciousness of this killer at the time of the

00:22:29.660 crime, as if he has any, as if, you know, they have the slightest clue at all. There is no expert on

00:22:36.120 the face of the planet, okay, that has the supernatural ability to peer back in time

00:22:41.320 and examine the unspoken thoughts of another human.

00:22:46.920 You might as well let the defense present evidence

00:22:49.300 from astrologists and fortune tellers,

00:22:52.280 which by the way, these retarded TikTok feminists,

00:22:55.200 they would be perfectly fine with that.

00:22:57.100 They consider that to be bulletproof evidence.

00:23:01.800 Oh, your honor, she's a Leo.

00:23:03.320 She couldn't have.

00:23:05.320 That's literally what they think.

00:23:08.460 This country really needs to get over

00:23:10.080 it's completely unwarranted reverence for psychiatrists. These people are just making

00:23:14.640 stuff up as they go. That's what they're doing. And if you watch this trial, you're well aware of

00:23:20.640 that fact. The testimony from the shrinks was extremely unimpressive and medically wrong in

00:23:24.260 many cases, like when they claim the serotonin theory of depression is real when it was debunked

00:23:28.500 years ago. But here's the key point. Clancy's insanity defense rests almost completely on the

00:23:36.460 claim that she heard a voice telling her to kill her kids. That's the only insane mental state

00:23:44.160 ever reported by Clancy herself. Because aside from that, the only mental state she ever reported

00:23:50.880 were, you know, she's really sad. She's upset. She's having disturbing thoughts. None of that

00:23:55.820 is insane. None of that means you're insane. I don't care how sad you are. I don't care how

00:23:59.980 depressed you are. I don't care how stressed you are. Doesn't matter. You could have the worst

00:24:06.920 case of postpartum depression of all time. Doesn't matter. You're not insane. You still know you're

00:24:11.020 not supposed to kill your kids. The only insane thing that has ever been reported about Lindsay

00:24:17.440 Clancy is that she heard a voice which told her to kill her kids. Well, the problem is number one,

00:24:24.780 there's no way to prove or disprove an imaginary voice. Okay. Any murderer can make this claim.

00:24:32.740 And if that counts as reasonable doubt, then we can never convict anyone of anything ever again.

00:24:41.040 Okay. Anyone can say, yeah, I did this terrible thing. It doesn't even have to be murder. Maybe

00:24:48.280 I stole a car. Yeah. I stole a car, but a voice told me to do it. Can you prove,

00:24:54.040 Can you prove a voice didn't tell me to do it?

00:24:56.960 Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,

00:24:59.540 that I didn't have an imaginary voice in my head telling me to do this?

00:25:07.300 Well, no.

00:25:09.640 I can't prove anything about an imaginary voice.

00:25:12.800 No one can prove anything about that.

00:25:14.340 Neither can you.

00:25:17.260 Second, she never reported this voice before or since the crime,

00:25:21.100 strongly indicating that she made it up,

00:25:22.780 And most importantly, even if she did hear a voice, why didn't she refuse to follow the command?

00:25:30.900 You know, that's the interesting thing when she talks about hearing a voice.

00:25:33.820 She's actually separating her consciousness from the voice, right?

00:25:38.180 She's saying, I heard a voice.

00:25:41.560 So what you're telling us is that in this moment, when you allegedly heard the voice, that you still, like you yourself were still there.

00:25:49.080 You still, your consciousness was there, and so your consciousness was experiencing this voice, right?

00:25:57.520 Because she didn't say, oh, I felt compelled, like I couldn't even, I couldn't stop my arms from moving and strangling my kids.

00:26:05.800 She said, I heard a voice that told me to do it.

00:26:09.280 Told who to do it, told you to do it.

00:26:10.880 Okay, so you were there, not just physically, but like consciously.

00:26:14.160 and if the voice told you to kill your kids then why didn't you refuse the voice if a voice told

00:26:22.480 me to murder my children i would simply refuse if the voice threatened and harassed me i would

00:26:30.500 still refuse if a if a real human voice that belonging to a real human being told me to kill

00:26:40.040 my kids and put a gun to my head and told me to do it, I would still refuse. So if this imaginary

00:26:46.020 voice did appear, Clancy could have chosen to not obey it. But instead, by her telling, the voice

00:26:51.960 spoke exactly one time, and she just immediately complied with what it told her to do. Not even a

00:27:00.160 moment of pushback. Even if I bought that nonsense, which I don't, she would still be guilty as hell.

00:27:07.740 Of course, the great irony, by the way, is that like 95% of the women blaming psych drugs for

00:27:12.100 Lindsay Clancy murdering her children are also on psych drugs themselves. They supposedly believe

00:27:17.240 that these drugs can cause you to annihilate your whole family, and yet that hasn't stopped any of

00:27:20.840 them from taking the drugs. And they certainly are calling for the drugs to be banned, which means

00:27:26.800 the whole psych drug excuse is not even really believed by most of the people offering it.

00:27:31.760 now all of these arguments are very straightforward and obvious but in a courtroom defense lawyers are

00:27:37.900 allowed to call a series of paid experts to the stand all of whom have one job muddy the waters

00:27:42.600 as much as possible and the job of those experts is to convince the jurors to disregard common

00:27:47.400 sense and follow supposedly massachusetts law which is a law that presents the prosecution

00:27:52.500 with a burden of proof that on a liberal reading is impossible to surmount well there are shoes

00:27:59.460 that you wear because you're required to have something covering your feet. And then there are

00:28:02.900 boots. And great boots can actually improve you as a person. I can't prove that scientifically,

00:28:07.380 but put on a good pair of boots and you immediately stand a little straighter. You walk with more

00:28:11.820 purpose. Suddenly you look like a man who knows how to fix things. Whether you actually know how

00:28:16.020 to fix things is really beside the point. I have a couple of boots from Tekova's because they're

00:28:20.540 genuinely great boots. They're classic leather roper boots with a slightly shorter heel and a

00:28:26.020 clean, understated design.

00:28:28.100 They look great with jeans.

00:28:29.100 They're extremely comfortable.

00:28:31.080 And unlike a lot of boots,

00:28:32.380 you don't have to spend weeks painfully breaking them in.

00:28:35.340 Tecovas handcrafts every pair in more than 200 steps

00:28:38.200 and you can feel the quality immediately.

00:28:40.580 They also carry other great pieces like belts,

00:28:42.540 which I also have from them.

00:28:43.940 And not only are they very well crafted,

00:28:46.540 but also good for these in-between seasons

00:28:48.900 when you're not sure what to wear.

00:28:50.460 Is it summer, is it fall?

00:28:51.720 Well, with Tecovas, you don't need to worry about that.

00:28:54.340 Right now, get 10% off at tecovas.com slash Matt.

00:28:57.740 When you sign up for email and text, that's 10% off at T-E-C-O-V-A-S dot com slash Matt.

00:29:04.120 Tecovas.com slash Matt.

00:29:05.260 See site for details.

00:29:06.140 Tecovas.

00:29:07.020 Point your toes west.

00:29:08.880 We developed this strange habit of taking food, breaking it down into individual components,

00:29:13.300 and then trying to recreate what nature already made for us.

00:29:16.900 Balance of Nature takes a much simpler approach.

00:29:20.020 Their fruits and veggie supplements contain 31 different whole fruits and vegetables,

00:29:22.880 including things like apples, blueberries, broccoli, carrots, and spinach. It's just an

00:29:27.640 easy way to get more variety into your routine. Go to bounceofnature.com, use code Walsh, and get

00:29:32.400 10% off any subscription plus a free guiltless snack. So the holdout juror in this case,

00:29:40.200 even if he were disregarding the law, which I actually don't even think he was, and I'll explain

00:29:44.600 why in a minute, would have been logically justified in disregarding it and voting to

00:29:50.780 convict this woman. That's what juries are supposed to do when the law is wrong, incoherent, and

00:29:57.100 unjust. When there's no legitimate way to apply the law, when the law is unintelligible, you have

00:30:05.620 to disregard it. To be clear, juries should not disregard the law because they identify with the

00:30:11.240 race or gender of the defendant, like what happened with the OJ jury, for example. They

00:30:18.000 disregarded the law. They disregarded the evidence simply out of racial tribalism. That can't happen.

00:30:25.000 I mean, it does happen all the time, but it shouldn't. They shouldn't disregard the law

00:30:29.060 because they've been bribed or because they have some hidden bias in the case. But in cases where

00:30:34.900 a jury is being asked to follow rules that don't make any sense and are unintelligible and incoherent

00:30:40.240 and self-contradictory and that prevent the prosecution from winning the case by default,

00:30:45.440 then it's their right to vote guilty. This is one of the few benefits of the jury system that we

00:30:51.080 currently have. It does at least still allow common people to serve as a bulwark, a last line

00:30:57.520 of defense against ridiculous laws and deranged government policy. There's plenty of Massachusetts

00:31:02.400 precedent on this question, by the way, which I found in about five minutes. Here's a case called

00:31:05.900 Commonwealth v. Hebert from 1980, which is still cited by courts today. Quote,

00:31:11.600 although it's improper for a juror to disregard the law as given by the judge, it remains within

00:31:15.160 the power of a juror to vote his or her conscience. So that case was about a juror who refused to

00:31:21.520 convict a man for gun possession, even though she knew he had violated the law. The issue was that

00:31:26.000 the man simply wasn't aware of a brand new law requiring him to carry a firearm identification

00:31:29.660 card when he carried the gun. So it was a ticky tack charge and the juror thought it was stupid.

00:31:33.460 So she wanted to acquit. It was basically jury nullification. And in response, the judge should

00:31:38.540 have accepted the holdout's decision and declared a hung jury in a mistrial. But instead, the judge

00:31:42.420 berated this person, said that she should have followed the law and basically ignored her and

00:31:47.440 accepted a pervert of guilty. And the judge was overturned because in our legal system, jurors

00:31:52.300 have the ability to vote in accordance with their conscience. There's really no way to prevent them

00:31:56.280 from doing so. Now, it's true that if a juror explicitly refuses to follow the law and decides

00:32:00.620 not to participate in deliberations at all, if the juror were to say, I'm not even going to do this

00:32:06.240 because I don't care about the law and I'm not going to deliberate. Well, then, yeah, in that

00:32:10.420 case, the judge could have the juror dismissed and should. But that's not what happened here.

00:32:15.480 It's also true that it's technically improper for jurors to ignore the law, but at the same time,

00:32:19.560 judges are not allowed to grill the jury about their reasoning during deliberations and throw

00:32:24.740 out anyone on the jury who doesn't have the correct arguments. Once that starts happening,

00:32:30.340 there's no longer any secrecy in deliberations. There's no way to ensure the jurors won't be

00:32:33.860 intimidated into changing their minds, and there's no way for juries to serve as a last line of

00:32:37.760 defense against the government. You might as well not even have juries. Maybe more importantly,

00:32:43.040 there'd be no way for juries to serve as a last line of defense against the TikTok mob.

00:32:48.140 Because whoever this holdout is, he put himself in extraordinary jeopardy

00:32:51.240 to do what's moral and lawful, which is to ensure that no woman who deliberately murders her children

00:32:56.480 can just walk away or roll away, as the case may be, like nothing happened. It's a profound

00:33:03.140 failing of our civilization, maybe the greatest failing imaginable, that we're apparently relying

00:33:07.600 on only one juror to make this stand. So again, even if this brave member of the jury did disregard

00:33:13.360 the law, this brave man, he would have been totally justified in doing so, in my view, but

00:33:20.280 he did not actually disregard the law. In fact, even by the totally ridiculous standards of

00:33:26.460 Massachusetts law, and even with the existence of the insanity defense, a defense that shouldn't be

00:33:31.440 allowed in the first place, but it is. Still, Clancy's guilt was still clear beyond the faintest

00:33:39.040 shred of reasonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming that she planned the murder

00:33:45.820 and then carried it out methodically and systematically over the course of several

00:33:52.040 minutes. There is no reasonable doubt about either of those things. The notion that a person can

00:34:00.500 engage in planning and forethought and then act methodically and systematically and also have no

00:34:07.640 idea what they're doing is incoherent. Clancy engineered a window of time to murder her

00:34:15.040 children. This is a matter of the digital record. She sent her husband away because she knew that

00:34:22.800 murdering her children was wrong and that her husband would try to prevent it. You see, if she

00:34:28.980 were actually insane, that would mean that she didn't, she doesn't know that it's wrong to murder

00:34:33.360 your kids. And so then she wouldn't have needed to send her husband away. She wouldn't, she wouldn't

00:34:38.880 have waited for her husband to be gone to do it. She would have just went and done it. But she did

00:34:44.000 wait because she wasn't insane. She also confessed thoughts about harming her children to her family,

00:34:50.020 demonstrating that she knew the thoughts were wrong. And then she did not confess those same

00:34:55.200 thoughts to her doctors, again, because she knew those thoughts were wrong. And through the course

00:35:01.240 of the murder, she not only had to make the willful choice to do it, but she had to reaffirm

00:35:05.600 that choice three times as she systematically slaughtered three children. And she murdered

00:35:13.060 them in a way, by strangulation, that would have required continued, determined, willful action

00:35:20.360 for an extended period of time. And she did this again and again and again.

00:35:28.220 And then she attempted suicide either because she felt guilty, demonstrating that she knew that

00:35:32.700 what she did was wrong, or the attempt was fake, which is my theory, which even more demonstrates

00:35:37.800 that she was sane and lucid. So either way, these are all facts that altogether remove

00:35:44.440 reasonable doubt. And if they don't, then again, we don't have enough certainty to convict anyone

00:35:51.740 of anything. If a person can function, act, speak, and in every way appear and behave sane,

00:36:01.460 as in Lindsay Clancy's case, and yet in some mysterious way still be insane,

00:36:06.780 then the word insane has no meaning at all. And it's impossible to ever know

00:36:11.940 whether someone is sane or insane. This is one of the claims that the defense's experts made,

00:36:19.220 which is that, yeah, someone can, by all appearances, be totally sane, but actually be

00:36:24.440 not sane. Okay, well, then you can literally just never know about anybody. I mean, if we cannot

00:36:34.100 prove insanity, or if we can't prove sanity based on someone's words, actions, and behaviors,

00:36:43.060 then you can never prove it. Ever. Ever. That makes it an incoherent standard,

00:36:52.040 and it would make it impossible to prosecute any crimes. So if that is actually the standard,

00:36:59.620 then again, any member of the jury would have not only the right, but the moral obligation

00:37:06.420 to disregard it. Lindsey Clancy, by any reasonable standard, by any moral standard,

00:37:13.100 by the standards of any decent, rational, intelligent person, deserved to be convicted

00:37:17.300 and thrown in a hole to rot and die. But instead, we're left with a mistrial, which itself was

00:37:23.000 somehow a positive outcome when compared to the alternative. But that silver lining view does not

00:37:28.480 erase the dark cloud you know that that is in the middle of that silver lining a dark cloud where

00:37:36.680 11 people wanted desperately to let a woman escape consequence for slaughtering all of her children

00:37:42.460 and where a defense lawyer demonizes and attempts to intimidate a juror and where thousands of women

00:37:48.340 flock to the murderer and defend and celebrate and canonize her rallying to her side writing

00:37:54.740 her fan mail to gush over this trial has truly been one of the bleakest most eye-opening criminal

00:38:01.580 cases in modern american history this is an evil that can only be countered by men who are totally

00:38:07.280 unafraid of the mob and whatever consequences they might bring there's at least one man in this case

00:38:13.820 who recognized that and what we need now before more children are slaughtered is many more like

00:38:20.440 him. The prosecution has to bring this case once again. The jury should be sequestered the second

00:38:26.720 time around. And if we're going to have a worthwhile legal system, Lindsay Clancy must be convicted and

00:38:33.320 sentenced to spend the rest of her life in a dungeon. Precisely the kind of hellhole where

00:38:39.500 if she were actually a worthwhile human being, she would admit she belongs.

00:38:50.440 But in all of my years of public life, I have never profited from public service.

00:38:58.320 I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their

00:39:02.600 president's a crook.

00:39:03.600 Well, I'm not a crook.

00:39:05.600 For more than five decades, from Iran-Contra to Monica Lewinsky to Russiagate, every political

00:39:10.500 scandal has been measured against one, the Watergate affair.

00:39:14.600 But what if Richard Nixon was telling the truth?

00:39:17.400 What if Watergate isn't what it seems?

00:39:19.760 of hundreds of thousands of pages of sworn testimony,

00:39:22.600 memoirs and newly released government documents

00:39:25.600 tell a different story than the one you learned in school.

00:39:28.600 I know America.

00:39:29.700 In 1972, Nixon won the biggest electoral landslide

00:39:32.940 in modern American history with grand plans

00:39:35.340 to remake the federal government.

00:39:37.340 Two years later, he was out of office.

00:39:39.820 You were taught that Nixon's men broke into

00:39:42.020 the Democratic National Committee headquarters

00:39:43.820 to spy on his political opponents.

00:39:45.880 You were taught that when he found out,

00:39:48.220 Nixon covered it up, and that the cover-up was worse than the crime.

00:39:53.300 You were taught that two heroic Washington Post reporters, guided by a righteous FBI

00:39:58.280 whistleblower, brought the most powerful man in the world to justice.

00:40:02.660 But you were never taught what really happened.

00:40:04.940 I shall resign the presidency, effective at noon tomorrow.

00:40:08.140 The real history of the Waterdeep scandal is available now on Daily Wire Plus.

The Matt Walsh Show - September 04, 2026

INSTANT REACTION： Mistrial Declared In Lindsay Clancy Case

Episode Stats

Transcript