Manosphere's Favorite Juror Had Active Restraining Order During Clancy Trial

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:09 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is Vapid Response 44. It's where we find something vapid and respond to it as opposed to rapid response every Friday. I'm Thomas. That over there is real life immigration attorney Matt Cameron. How you doing, Matt?

0:00:23 Matt: Once again, sorting through the world of vapidity and bad legal takes, there are just too many to choose from. We do not have the time to do them all, but we're today, as always.

0:00:32 Thomas: What are we going to be talking about?

0:00:34 Matt: The main thrust here today is on the Lindsay Clancy trial, which is still very much in the news, still something that people are talking about. In the interview we just did with Dave Wedge, who's written the authoritative book on the Karen Reid trial that we just had this week, the Lindsay -Clancy trial came up because it is very much part of the ecosystem right now in trying to understand how social media and corporate media and independent media are covering. And so, of course, This being Vapid Response, we're going to go to our friends at The Federalist. We can't stay away from The Federalists. It is just a well of bad takes, just constantly.

0:01:04 Thomas: That's addicted to the Federalist. Send help.

0:01:07 Matt: And oh, I also want to mention our friends over, our frenemies over at The Arena, the AFL, American First Legal podcast. I have to notice that...

0:01:16 Thomas: It's like Arena Football League? What are we talking about?

0:01:19 Matt: I remember the very expensive, very well -produced Arena podcast with, I mean, I guess, certainly the audio quality was not up to Thomas Smith's standards, but I will say that since the time that we covered them, and this might be a coincidence, it might not be a coincidence, but since the times that we've covered their bad legal takes segment and pointed out that none of them were bad or legal or takes, they have not run another one. We can

0:01:24 Thomas: Well produced? Expensive, maybe. Oh man. Oh! But the song! We need the song. It was so good.

0:01:48 Matt: Just steal it now because I think they've given up.

0:01:49 Thomas: It's Bad Legal. It takes... Oh man, that was soo good. How does it start? I can't remember. I'll have to go back.

0:01:53 Matt: I'm going to take full credit. I'm just going to go ahead and say that we killed bad legal takes.

0:01:56 Thomas: You killed it. It's like the famous thing where you know Jon Stewart took out Tucker Carlson what's his name doing the whatever that crossfire yeah it's like that that's our that's the crossfire moment that we took out is

0:02:03 Matt: That's right. Crossfire. And it was over. I'd prefer to think of it more like after Mozart. Nobody wrote operas anymore. He just killed opera. That is how it goes. I think that's a better comparison, really. It is true.

0:02:15 Thomas: That true okay there's no more operas after that

0:02:20 Matt: Well, there was a very long period of time because he mastered the French, German, and Italian operas. He was just that kind of guy.

0:02:20 Thomas: Very long period okay it is just like that you know it's just like wait how is it like that Because Sal who are you the Salieri or the most no I don't um yeah but the thing about the Lindsay Clancy thing is it's it's really become a Hot topic for like manosphere people too. I started noticing like just out in the wild a bunch of really sexist comics because of course the person who held out was a man and I don't think was he the it wasn't the only man was it or was he don't know but there but he was outnumbered I think there are more women on the on

0:02:27 Matt: That's, I'm the Mozart of bad legal takes. Yeah, yeah, no, I don't think he was. Yeah.

0:02:58 Thomas: The jury so naturally the manosphere thinks that there's the one rational man who wouldn't be taken in by this child murderer kind of thing and these hysterical women all Tried to convince them otherwise. There's a lot of really just, people just don't understand or they don't care that they're just obviously being sexist. Like they just post like screenshots of the women being interviewed about it and they're like, oh, this is what he had to deal with. And you're like what?

0:03:27 Thomas: It seems to be a picture of two women.

0:03:27 Matt: Yeah yeah, it's a woman talking. Yeah

0:03:30 Thomas: It's like, it only looks bad if you hate women, I guess, but it's a real Rorschach test thing.

0:03:31 Matt: Pretty much. And as we'll point out, because one of the pieces we're going to read, of course, does lionize this juror who clearly did not understand the law or didn't want to follow the law. That's the irony of it about reasonable doubt. And yeah, we broke this down, of Some of these takes, even though they're conservative takes, you might be hearing on your social media out there, folks. So I think it's worth knowing what Massachusetts law actually is and isn't, and what this trial was about and what it wasn't. I think these are pretty exemplary in the sense that they're examples, not in the

0:04:13 Thomas: -hmm, mm -hmm. All right. Oh, and of course, Lydia is off today. I forgot to mention Dr. Thing with our son, so, you know, she couldn't be here, but we'll carry on. She'll be back next week. What's that?

0:04:35 Matt: Two guys talking about Lindsay Clancy. We can do this.

0:04:37 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, she wouldn't take part in it. No, okay, well we're gonna take our usual break and of course on Vapid Response we gotta thank our top patrons, our Hall of Famers, our all -time greats on patreon .com slash law as Matt down straight whiskey on the air.

0:04:55 Matt: Gonna need it.

0:04:55 Thomas: We'll thank our first third. Thank you to Help! I'm Trapped in a Patreon Shoutout. Well, that's a good place to be trapped, I think. Bewitched, Beclowned, Bewildered by Jeffrey... Played by Jeffrey Combs. Is that new? That's new. What does that mean?

0:05:10 Matt: That's really good, actually. It's a Star Trek joke. Jeffrey Combs played a bunch of people in Star Trek, yeah.

0:05:15 Thomas: Gotcha, nice.

0:05:16 Matt: Sounds

0:05:16 Thomas: My house is a mess, but I read a lot of books. Griff the Tired 2L, Matthew Cutler, autistic streamer, twitch.tv slash MTC underscore streams, a propensity for jokers, Romanes eunt domus, Gary the Seagull, waiting for your Monica's Italian sub, Unremarkable, Aminah, Donna Treadaway, Mother of Harridans, Mike Lapinsky, Central Texas Pocket Gopher. Oh, that's an interesting one. Is that something? Let's see.

0:05:44 Matt: Like a euphemism.

0:05:45 Thomas: Yeah, I'm trying to pocket gopher. I don't know. Sionitus, Listening from a Tiki Bar. Oh, we just missed you. Grey Pouponderance of the Evidence, Last Train to Skanksville. Still love that one. Classy Misty Meaner, Apprentice of Adventure, and Charlie Kelly, Attorney at Byrd Law. All right. Thanks so much. And of course we give those shout outs each and every vapid response to our Hall of Famers as a thank you. We'll take a break. You can avoid that at patreon .com slash law, and then we'll be right back. All right, Matt. What am I looking at here? We forgot, of course, the moose douch didn't even touch on it because it's usually a surprise. What's going to be our moose -douche today?

0:05:47 Matt: It was that As always, we like to start out with a lighter video clip than what we're going to be talking about. This is from the first attempt at a midterm convention in our lifetimes. I think the last one was in 1974 or something. The Democrats tried it. It wasn't great when they did it. Very unusual to have a mid -term convention. It means you're probably not doing well.

0:06:37 Thomas: I didn't even think about that. Wow.

0:06:39 Matt: Yeah, it's weird.

0:06:40 Thomas: I just assumed it was... As with most things with the calendar, when it happens, I assume we're at the time of calendars when that happens because I can't do time. And so I saw all this stuff about the convention. I was like, oh, I guess we're the convention time of things. I didn t even think of it.

0:06:54 Matt: I mean... This is the same year that there was a UFC fight on the White House lawn. This isn't really like we're in a year of unprecedented. This is very minor unprecedented, but it would be a bigger deal politically in another year. So yeah, this is a Trump fest, obviously. I read some inside accounts of what this thing was like. It sounds like it was miserable just to get in and everything about it. And of course, there were long speeches from Ken Paxton and Ted Cruz and all your favorites. All the stars were there. And, of course Trump, two straight nights. Once he kind of got two straight But, of course, there was a surprise visit from everybody's favorite actual Democrat, the most Democratic of the Democratic Senators. So let's take a look here, because of course

0:07:00 Thomas: Two? He did two speeches? Oh, my God. Yeah... Oh,

0:07:33 Matt: Big news that he's appearing.

0:07:34 Thomas: Boy. I did see this headline, but I haven't seen the video. Let's see.

0:07:40 Clip: I'm one of the Republicans in Dallas. Yes, I'm Senator John Fetterman, Pennsylvania. Yes I'm a Democrat. Why am I here talking to you today?

0:07:48 Matt: Great question.

0:07:49 Clip: Because, well, I am a common sense Democrat. I'm always going to stand with America. I am always going reject the extremes and socialism and that anti -American way of life.

0:07:49 Thomas: Yeah, good fucking question. Uh -huh. What's with the music?

0:08:03 Clip: That is the kind of senator that gets the job done, and he's going to fight for Pennsylvania. I'm proud to count him as my friend. Right back over my shoulder, that's the iconic US Steel Mill. And that's exactly the kind of thing that we'll work together and we'll with President Trump to fight and defend the steel way of life right here in the steel valley. I have this opportunity to introduce this great American, a great senator, and yes, he's in a different party, but I'm proud to count him as my great friend. So for everybody in Dallas, I'm here to introduce Dave McCormick.

0:08:06 Thomas: He's campaigning for to work at the mill? What the f - Oh,

0:08:44 Matt: Yep, his friend from work. He's introducing his buddy from work, his other Senator.

0:08:47 Thomas: My God. His work friend. The funny thing was, I was about to ask you, like, is it in Pennsylvania or something? Like, is that where the - But no, he said Dallas, so it's in Dallas.

0:08:56 Matt: Now, he's standing in Pennsylvania. He wasn't going to go to Dallas. He was just going to do a video. But that's still quite a lot at a Republican convention to have your Democratic senator with the Senate being very much on the line in this election.

0:09:06 Thomas: What in the world? I don't get this from any angle. Clearly, this man's judgment is not good anymore, if it was ever.

0:09:08 Matt: Come on. Come

0:09:17 Thomas: It's very bad.

0:09:17 Matt: And Dave McCormack, let me tell you, the guy he's endorsing, he broke with the Republican majority out of 891 votes. I just went and checked on VoterView.

0:09:26 Matt: 891 roll call votes, and he only broke with a Republican majority four times, and none of those was a clear Trump break. So he's straight on hardcore Trump Republican. I mean, he's out there talking about how actually Pennsylvanians love paying more for gas because they know that they're supporting a really important war that's doing good things. Like this guy is... Not somebody that a Democrat should ever be endorsing.

0:09:47 Matt: I mean, John Fetterman is no longer a Democrat, obviously, but no.

0:09:43 Thomas: What in the Yeah, I mean I will say I don't think he's going to convert to being a Republican. I actually don't that. It doesn't mean he's gonna be like a good Democrat or anything, but I like he I think He he seems to have enough of his identity to not do that like he's been pretty firm about not switching bars I can see him going independent and you know but like I don' think he is going to switch feel free if the prediction becomes wrong I can be we can do a we can A dude hat episode on me. But yeah, I doubt he'll switch parties. And he only has two years to do it because we'll have him out on his ass either way.

0:10:27 Thomas: But it's possible he'll change to be independent. But what a weird thing. Like, everything about that guy is weird. That article that came out that he just doesn't even...

0:10:36 Matt: That he's not doing anything?

0:10:37 Thomas: He's like the Marco Rubio of the Democrats in that he doesn't work, doesn't show up to the Senate, doesn' meet with people. Like it's just...

0:10:42 Matt: He just goes on conservative talk shows and does interviews.

0:10:47 Thomas: He just loves Israel. It's like, that seems to be the main thing. Like, why? What is the connection? I don't understand. Why does he love Israel so much?

0:10:49 Matt: That too. Pennsylvania, I don't do a very good Eddie Vedder impression, but can't find a Fettermann, I think would be the... I gotta try to do that.

0:11:00 Thomas: Well, you are the Pearl Jam drummer,

0:11:04 Matt: That's right. I just can't do any better, but I mean, something like that. You can find a better man, is what I mean to say.

0:11:04 Thomas: But yeah. He has voice rules. I

0:11:13 Matt: Yeah, it's so good.

0:11:13 Thomas: Love, I love his voice.

0:11:14 Matt: I love Pearl Jam. But yeah, I mean come on, Pennsylvania. Come on. Yeah. Like, make up your mind. Get rid of this guy.

0:11:21 Thomas: Well, there's nothing to be done until, you know, two years from now. It's crazy.

0:11:23 Matt: No, he's out. But I mean it's just, yeah. Don't do it again.

0:11:27 Thomas: What a weird, it's just weird. Like the, like he's introducing a senator in a state that, like I was like, okay, if it's in their state, maybe that makes sense. Nope, not in their State. Just being a hype man in a weird awkward video for a guy that's going to speak that no one cares about at a Trump rally. Like what? Okay. Cool. Cool man. Cool story. All right.

0:11:29 Matt: Super weird. Yeah...

0:11:48 Thomas: Well, that's an amuse douche for you. If there ever was one for sure.

0:11:51 Matt: It's quick. It's a classic amuse -douche. Here we are. Moving on. To talk about the Lindsay Clancy trial. We have talked about some of the law here. We went into it on a Friday show a couple weeks ago, but I want to make sure that I refresh it before we get into these articles so that we are all starting from the same page and that we're working from the SAME LAW. Massachusetts law, as we've talked about, is a little unusual in a few ways. We like to stick with a lot of old -fashioned things. There's a lot 19th century stuff going on. But I thought the best way to do it would be just to pull up the video of the court giving jury instructions about mental health and criminal responsibility because that's what These things come down to there are so many people who are just casually saying things that are just so completely wrong. And I don't mean just like technically wrong. I just mean that they don't make any sense under the law. This video here, we have the judge instructing, and this is pretty straightforward, pretty much hewing to the jury instructions as I understand it, the criminal responsibility. So let's hear him explain this part as to, because remember, just to set this up, but just for those not who haven't kept up with this, Lindsay Clancy, of course, has acknowledged at this point in the trial, now I should say mistrial has already been declared at the time we're recording this, but we are talking about the aftermath. Lindsay Clency physically

0:12:58 Matt: Ended the lives of her children, right? So the question is about criminal responsibility. There's no question that she is the person who caused their deaths, but the question at that point becomes, is she criminally responsible or is she not guilty by reason of insanity, which is the Massachusetts phrase for what people call the insanity defense or mental health defense. And so these are the instructions the jury received, and this is a pretty, it's a very accurate summary of the law that controls all of this. So let's start there.

0:13:20 Clip: A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect. And as a result of that mental disease, or defect, she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

0:13:43 Matt: Let's stop for one sec. I just want to make sure that we completely understand this. This is from the Micheal charge from 1967 and pretty much model penal code. So there's an either -or here, that at the time of such conduct, so it has to be at the times that it happens, that as a result of mental disease or defects, he lacks the substantial capacity either, it's very important, there's either here, to appreciate the criminality, which is the wrongfulness of conduct, or conform conduct to the requirements of law. And he's going to explain a little bit more about how all this works. But it's not enough to show that she didn't know that it was wrong. It's enough that she just couldn't stop herself, basically, that you had no capacity to conform your conduct.

0:14:22 Thomas: It's not enough to show that she knew it was wrong, I think is what you're saying, right?

0:14:26 Matt: Right, right. Or she didn t know. Yeah, right you know what I mean. Yes. Sorry. Substantial incapacity, though. So basically, it's just not any incapacity but it has to be enough that it would keep you from conforming your conduct

0:14:37 Thomas: Well, let me clarify because it sounds like you're you were talking from the other side of the burden Do they have to prove that who I forget who has the burden at this point?

0:14:45 Matt: So the judge will explain this too, but this is very strange because in Massachusetts actually the Commonwealth has the responsibility to prove the defendant was actually sane, which is very unusual. Usually it's your responsibility to proof that you were not in your right mind. So working from that, if you don't feel that they've met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was in her right mind, that's different.

0:15:04 Thomas: So to clarify so it's not enough for them to prove That she knew what she was doing was wrong. There also has to be another thing on top of it

0:15:11 Matt: Yeah, or that, you know, or even that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong because she was so, the mental disease or defect kept her from being able to understand the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality. So there's kind of the difference there of like, either you don't even understand that what you're doing is wrong, that you think you're something else entirely, or you think your doing something to save your kids, or if you can't conform your conduct to the requirements of the law because you have some kind of compulsion, and those are both ways that mental disease and defect could work out. So that's pretty important to understand.

0:15:36 Thomas: Yeah, no, I just sorry. I'm just getting hung up, but we still seem to be talking from two different directions So are you saying she has to prove I thought you said the burden was on the state?

0:15:37 Matt: I know. Right. So it starts on the state about once, you know, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was sane and they weren't able to do that. They pretty much conceded that she had a mental disease or defect. Then it becomes how much it affected her and how much she can control her conduct. So we can hear a little bit more to get a little more context.

0:16:01 Clip: Mental disease or defect is a legal term, not a medical term. It need not fit into a formal medical diagnosis. The phrase mental disease or a defect does not include any abnormality characterized only by repeated criminal conduct. It is for you to determine in light of all the evidence whether the defendant had a mental disease If the Commonwealth has proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killing, the Commonwealth Then you must consider whether as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. To establish that the defendant had the substantial

0:17:22 Thomas: I just want to stop. So we're going through the prongs and it's hard to keep straight, but that first prong it sounded like is they first would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she doesn't have a disease. Well, you said they already kind of gave that up because she has something.

0:17:33 Matt: In the closings. Yeah, they conceding.

0:17:36 Thomas: I said disease. I meant, what is the word?

0:17:38 Matt: That's right. Sure. Disease or defect, yeah.

0:17:39 Thomas: Oh, it is disease. Okay.

0:17:40 Matt: And as the judge said, you don't even have to specify which one. Every juror could have a different idea about what it was, and they did not really emphasize postpartum depression in the closing, unlike the media coverage would have it.

0:17:51 Thomas: Yeah, yeah, it is really interesting. And it makes sense that you wouldn't need it to be like in the DSM, whatever, because it feels like that could be a weird... You wouldn't want someone to be convicted because they have something that isn't quite like defined in the medical sense, but is definitely still, you know, like a reason they aren't guilty. So we've kind of gone down that fork in the road, which is the state could have proven that she doesn't have anything, but they didn't. They kind of granted that. So now once we're on the granting that there was something then we're on some other prongs right and so it's like They have to prove that she didn't that she either Had the capacity no both right they had to prove she both had the capacity to know What she was doing was wrong and that she could modify her conduct in accordance with the law or whatever was something right well

0:18:39 Matt: That's an or, actually. So those are alternative theories.

0:18:42 Thomas: Or is so That's just, again, it's the counter way of saying it. So I'm saying the state has to prove that both of those aren't the case.

0:18:50 Matt: Sure, or at least, yeah yeah, that's right. Yeah, it's an either or. I mean, you don't have to show that she didn't know it was wrong. It's enough that she couldn't stop herself or the other way around. But yeah, I mean ideally the state wants to be able to...

0:19:00 Thomas: No, hold on. That's very important

0:19:01 Matt: Sorry.

0:19:01 Thomas: Because I understood it differently. I thought, I thought you were saying they don't only have to prove one of those, right? The state doesn't only to prove either she knew what she was doing was wrong or she could.

0:19:13 Matt: Yes, in terms of the... Right. But it's a defendant's... Yeah, I'm sorry. We are confusing each other. Yes. No, you're correct. They do have to end up proving that. Yeah. It''s all in the commonwealth. Yeah, that's

0:19:21 Thomas: Let's keep going. So we're on that one now. Okay, so here's where it like that first fork I talked about. I just want to make sure we understand because this is confusing. First fork, so now we're on the like, okay, if they don't prove that she's totally fine, which they didn't, we're granting that, now we are on this fork.

0:19:35 Clip: Wrongfulness of her conduct, or to conform her conduct to the requirements To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law, the Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any mental disease or defect that may have existed did not deprive the defendant of her ability to behave as the law requires, that is, to obey the law. The word appreciate means to understand rather than merely to know. Criminality means the legal significance of conduct. Wrongfulness means the moral significance. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew and understood that her conduct was illegal or that it was wrong. It's not enough for the Commonwealth to show that the Defendant merely knew or was intellectually aware that her The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a mental disease or defect did not deprive the defendant of a meaningful understanding of the legal or moral significance of her conduct. The defendant must have been able to realize in some meaningful way that her conduct was illegal or wrong. In considering You may consider all the evidence that's been presented at this trial. You may

0:21:19 Matt: Probably good. So yeah, that's pretty nuanced. There's a lot going on there. And it's a little more nuanced than you have to, you know, the standard kind of thing is like, oh you know she's going to plead insanity so she gets off, right? Which is basically a distillation of what we're going to see in some of these pieces. There is a lot that had to be analyzed.

0:21:39 Thomas: But importantly, correct me if I'm wrong, like it really does boil down to do you think the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that She was still capable of conforming her conduct to the law and the mental defect or whatever did not affect her ability to do that. You know, which is essentially like did the state prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was kind of in her right mind in a way that would make her able to Be held accountable for these things. And I just feel like it's so obviously based on what I've seen that there's plenty of reasonable doubt there at the very least. You know, I don't get why that would be such a big leap for so many people, you know, and indeed the jury didn't either because there was only one holdout.

0:22:28 Matt: Right. And that's perfectly reasonable. And of course, I want to remind everybody that not guilty was never an option. It's always going to be criminal responsible or not guilty by reason of insanity. And it also matters because these writers don't seem to understand that either. Not guilty would mean no criminal responsibility whatsoever, and that there's no explanation and basically that she didn't do it. So that's not the question on the table. But yes, it is very nuanced. And, of course we're going to look at two writers that aren't really capable of nuance, I don't think, because they're both professional conservative writers.

0:22:56 Thomas: But should we talk about that juror now? Because I think that one thing I've seen is that this lone juror who I don't think was the only man but was among few of the men, you know, I think the manosphere is holding him out as some big example. And then it turns out that, you now, they do a little digging and he has a domestic violence incident in his past that I guess eventually was dropped because the wife didn't want to you know testify and risk like losing custody of the child or something uh and also at the time the juror had an active restraining order against him from his teen nephew so said in court documents in 2025 that the jurors pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face According to NBC Boston. And this is not unlike the other side. This is not like, you know, we saw someone on X who claimed something like this is actual news doing this is real news. And there's another question, Matt, which is like, wait a minute, if you had an active restraining order against him, doesn't that come up in the questionnaire? And is there some possibility that. Something fishy might be going on there, and if so, is there any recourse? I know that's not exactly what we intended to talk about today, but it is something that kind of just came out recently.

0:24:13 Matt: I mean, there's the possibility of contempt proceedings because obviously in the jury questionnaire, you're asked if you've been in any kind of court process. I understand he was also facing eviction at some point. So you've got potentially multiple angles here where he knew that he had been in court before for at least three different reasons potentially and chose not to disclose that. Now, I will say his name has come out. We're not going to use his name. I don't think that's fair.

0:24:33 Thomas: Yeah, no reason to.

0:24:36 Matt: And I do I think that the way that, just as we're talking about with Dave Wedge on Monday, the way the social media has come to dominate these things, the people are participating and playing along at home is getting to be pretty bad. And I don't want to be part of that, but I do it's important to focus on this man for a moment because he obviously is the crux of why we have a mistrial and why they couldn't agree.

0:24:52 Thomas: Yeah, and I just want to say, it's so perfect, real quick before we dig into it, that the lone man that all these assholes online were holding out to be like, wow, he was the one person brave enough to speak up against all these shrieking women on the jury, to stand up for what's right and say, of course she's a murderer, and then you come to find out, oh, he admitted he had reasonable doubt. And refuse to acknowledge what that means and he has domestic violence in his past including punching his own nephew apparently an active like it's like yeah that would be who that person is you know it's not account contrary to being some noble like one rational guy I just want people to know that if that's how you approach these stories if that how you see these things this pretty much always ends up What it being what it is where you're actually supporting the persons whose side you're on in this is the domestic violence uh person with domestic violence in their past who was the lone holdout who admitted he was doing the wrong thing if you've admitted you

0:25:41 Matt: Who didn't follow the law. Yeah

0:25:52 Thomas: Have a reasonable doubt that means you you vote the other way like it's just as simple as that how could that be like your hero you know it's ridiculous

0:26:02 Matt: Well, this is the same manosphere that worships the Tate brothers, so here we are. He makes the Tates brothers look pretty good. Oh, the other way around. The Tate Brothers make him look pretty cute. Sorry. Right. Well, we should probably take a break and come back and read our first piece.

0:26:12 Thomas: Good idea. Matt, let's take a quick break and let's thank our second group of amazing patrons of Hall of Famers on patreon .com slash law. Love doing this part. It's so fun. Uh, thank you too. Probably a real person. Nick Fish, who is more evil, JD Vance or Matt Walsh? I think. It's so hard, these questions are so hard. Is it more evil by effect or more evil just by their person?

0:26:39 Matt: I'd say the guy with the power is just automatically more evil.

0:26:42 Thomas: More capability for evil. Yeah, I'd say JD Vance. A negative phenomenon. Surrender. You gotta fight for your right to ex parte.

0:26:53 Thomas: VMLs rage at Patreon minigated by magnanimity of The Real Pittsburgh Phil. Oh, vehicular man's laughter's rage at Patreon mitigated by the magnanimity of the real Pittsburgh Phil, nice. Theodore by perennium. Oh the real, real Pittsburgh phil. Oh that's probably a where there's woke thing. Too bad Lydia's not here for that. Yeah, Pittsburgh Phil was like this. It's like nickname of a horrible criminal in the old timey times. So the real Pittsburgh Phil. Theodore by perineum. Today's episode is brought to you by the letter nothing. David Souther, Thomas Freeman, Cajun Killa, Cavalry, Fraud Fishy Hates Everything, Chris Simpson. How do I get into the top third? Oh, you are so close. It's just merely by lifetime amount. That's how I sort it. I just hit that sort. So you're very close. You're, out. So that's how. Anonymous Akilah and check out galenacomic .com for a cool webcomic. All right. Thank you so much, patrons. We'll take a break and get into some amazing articles. Right, Matt, here we go. Lindsay Clancy's activist jury. Activist jury, sure. Is a consequence of Democrats' soft on crime creep.

0:28:05 Matt: That's right. Wokeness. It's too woke. That is what happened. Yep.

0:28:08 Thomas: Yep, that's what happened. Mm

0:28:10 Matt: It is always wokeness . This is Jordan Boyd. There is not much out there because she is a staff writer for The Federalist. And one of these sort of manga people that just only writes, and that her entire career has been just writing this kind of thing. So probably paid very well for it.

0:28:23 Thomas: I was gonna say, it's probably because she's 12 and they give anyone a job who was like, yes, are you willing to write the dumbest shit you've ever heard in your life for an irrelevant publication? Yes. Okay, you're in.

0:28:26 Matt: That's true. It's always shocking when you find out when they graduated from college, shocking and sober, that these people get to do this.

0:28:38 Thomas: Three -minute read? They didn't even work that hard on this. All right. Not for us.

0:28:40 Matt: Not for us.

0:28:44 Thomas: Oh boy. Okay. Do you want me to read through it? Lydia, read through. Oh. Right. Facts, not feelings of solidarity or sympathy, were supposed to guide the Clancy jurors as they determined her legal fate. Yeah. Oh okay. I didn't realize it was just they weren't doing facts. Okay. Everyone has opinions about how the Lindsay Clancy trial, the high -profile case about a mother who strangles her three young children, should have ended, but none are more interesting and revealing than those of the jurors assigned to decide the case. Less than one week after the judge declared a mistrial, several of the hung jury's female members admitted to the media that the holdout vote belonged to one of the three men named to weigh the case Another juror, Paula Devlin, stunned Gayle King when she further announced that the man who refused to vote not guilty by reason of insanity is black.

0:28:47 Matt: Yeah, let's do it. I don't think that's relevant. I don't know why Gail King cares.

0:29:39 Thomas: In a subsequent sit -down with CBS Saturday Morning, Devlin revealed her opinion on the Clancy case was shaped by a collective quest to Quote, change something to make it better for other women in the future for other families. Devin maintained that the jury, quote, didn't know what was going on outside of our little bubble, but admitted that they saw their verdict as a turning point. Hmm. Well, that's a little weird. I kind of don't agree with any of that. But also, who knows, like, when these jurors get their moment in the sun here? Like, what? You know, like what?

0:30:20 Matt: The premise seems to be from Jordan Boyd that they were sitting around saying, isn't this a great history -making opportunity?

0:30:27 Thomas: Yeah.

0:30:28 Matt: I'm not sure that I completely believe her when she says that they're in their bubble and didn't know what was happening outside because I just don't think that's how it works anymore. I hope that's true. That's how its supposed to work, but we'll see.

0:30:38 Thomas: Yeah I disagree with the jurors saying that this should have been to make it better for other women like I think you should look at the facts of the case and What it was and the instructions and come to the decision that way, you know, and I think but I feel like a lot of this again It could be they're getting there 15 minutes now And it's not like every juror who voted the way I would have voted means they're a great person or something It's like people are complicated have a lot weird reasons that they you know we were talking about I think when we were visiting that That juries are just so weird. I can't remember when this conversation was, but like, there's like, you know, four to five of them that just don't say anything and don't, you never know the reasons exactly why they're voting the way they are. So, you I think this could be some editorializing after the fact by this juror, you or maybe it is what they were thinking. Either way, it doesn't really change the fact for me that the instructions were pretty clear and I feel like, she voted the right way.

0:31:34 Matt: Yeah, and also, this wasn't jury nullification. And again, this also was a mistrial, just to make the point. There was a hung jury. So she's almost acting as if they acquitted her, which they certainly didn't do, and she very well may be retried pretty soon. But this was not jury nullifcation. This was people carefully studying the law and debating for days and days and day. It took an entire week, obviously, to come back. They were really thinking this through, clearly. If they'd been doing what she's saying that they're doing, they would have been able to agree on this within a few minutes.

0:32:03 Matt: She's kind of trying to make the point that they weren't following the law, when in fact they were very clearly doing that from the way the jury's talking about it.

0:32:08 Thomas: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that quote is a little suspect. I don't love that this juror said that, but... Look at the one holdout who said, literally, I'm just voting the wrong way, essentially, who said in so many words, I am admitting that I have reasonable doubt, which means I should vote to not guilty by reason of insanity, right? I don't use the right terminology, not to acquit or whatever.

0:32:33 Thomas: But I'm not just not going to, you know, like, which is worse? Do we want to compare these two things?

0:32:39 Matt: Right.

0:32:39 Thomas: Someone who kind of editorializing on their vote, saying it'll be better for women, blah, blah. Whatever.

0:32:42 Matt: After the fact, yeah.

0:32:43 Thomas: After the fact, or a person who literally is like, no, I'm not listening. I'm just not going to vote the way that I already admitted I should vote.

0:32:50 Matt: That is jury nullification. You've heard the law from the judge and you're still choosing to say, and I mean, the way she says it basically is he could not get over the fact that this terrible thing was done. And obviously it was done and it was terrible. And it's like one of the worst things that anybody can do. But I understand the sort of the human block there, but you still have to listen to what the law is and make a decision.

0:32:53 Thomas: It's a good point. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

0:33:09 Thomas: But great point. That's the jury nullification. Like if you're saying I, I should the one way, but I just can't get over how bad this was. Like, okay, you're the one not following the rules of what the jury is supposed to do, right?

0:33:23 Matt: And ironically, for the point she's trying to make, that is actually the emotional reaction. And she's

0:33:27 Thomas: That's true. That's a very good point. Social change is not part of the charge the judge gives the jury. I agree with that. In fact, jurors like Devlin are required to take an oath to remain impartial. Any decision from the jury of Clancy's peers was supposed to be made using only the evidence presented during the trial. Yeah, uh-huh. Devlin's confession to CBS, however, suggests that at least some of the jurors came to the box with an agenda. The evidence that Clancy jury was compromised by activism Only gets more damning with other jury members' admissions that they relied on outside expertise. What is that?

0:34:02 Matt: All right, let's see. Let's click through to that. But I mean, they did have plenty of expertise at the trial to rely on. Expert psychiatric testimony.

0:34:04 Thomas: To, yeah. Appears to admit jurors used outside expertise to badger holdout. Okay, what did she say?

0:34:14 Matt: You shouldn't hear about this, but I'm guessing it's nothing. But, I'm

0:34:18 Thomas: Okay, here we go. The jurors, among them nurses, accused the male holdout of being very arrogant. One juror said that the holdout wanted to focus on the toxicology report and the nurses in the room spoke to that. They spoke to the specific thing, as if their expertise should have forced him to accept their interpretation of the evidence.

0:34:36 Matt: Sorry, the toxicology report? That's not even... Okay. Well, I mean, that might go to her state of mind if you're talking about her toxicology report, because she did take some medication at some point. So what they're suggesting is not that they were going on TikTok. What they're saying is they listened to nurses, or they didn't listen to nurses apparently, but nurses were trying... And you're allowed to bring in your outside expertise, like lawyers.

0:34:51 Thomas: I was going to say your

0:34:56 Matt: I mean... Yeah.

0:34:56 Thomas: Own, right? I mean, you're allowed to, I mean that's kind of more on the lawyers to try to get you out if they don't like that in voir dire, right, but if somebody happens to be a nurse, they're allowed

0:35:10 Matt: And if anybody's crazy enough to put me in a jury, I can just talk about trial procedure all day if I want to and how it's supposed to work and what should have happened here.

0:35:17 Thomas: That's not outside. That's literally inside expertise. What a bullshit thing.

0:35:21 Matt: It is. And this whole piece is, I hadn't actually clicked through to this. This is worse than I thought. I thought they were going to say there's a TikTok video, but nope. It's just that they use their personal expertise about something that they know something about because they're nurses. And maybe you should listen to that too.

0:35:23 Thomas: That a lie. Yeah. Yeah, according to the court transcript, the judge told jurors, if somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and the evidence you've heard. Yeah but there's some amount of something that's you deciding something.

0:35:48 Matt: You're also instructed that you're allowed to bring in your personal knowledge of things and like your human experience. So I mean, but

0:35:53 Thomas: How else could you make a decision? Otherwise, if you're just looking at the evidence, then what would you... The evidence doesn't argue itself, that's just a set of facts. You have to be part of that decision -making process. That's inevitably going to involve your experience. How else are you judging whether or not you think someone's lying? Or, you know, that classic jury stuff.

0:36:11 Matt: That's the whole point of the jury system for thousands of years now. So over a thousand years. Yeah, so we can skip that.

0:36:14 Thomas: So that's a lie. All right. This mindset ultimately enabled a majority of the jury to, quote unquote, get over the undisputed fact that Clancy killed her kids. It's not getting over it.

0:36:27 Matt: That was a quote. So that was an unfortunate choice of words. But basically, one of the jurors said that he just couldn't get over the fact that she had caused the death of her children. And again, that's like I'm saying, that is an emotional response. That's an understandable human response of like she has to pay.

0:36:40 Thomas: Was it? He had the hardest time getting over the fact that, yeah, I mean. No, I mean, I get why that's being maybe interpreted in a certain way, but that's also accurate. Like if, again, he's the one sitting there, to your point, having the emotional reaction doing the nullification. And if he's saying, I just can't get over how gruesome this was, yeah, okay. That's, but you're doing the wrong thing then. You're admitting you're the wrong. I don't even think that's like a bad quote. Like, I don' know. I get it, right? I mean. That's what you're supposed to do, right?

0:37:15 Matt: Yeah. That's right. So yeah, now we're going to just go on to something else completely because she has to keep writing.

0:37:22 Thomas: For decades, Democrats have sold soft on crime policies, sure haven't, to Americans using euphemisms like justice system reform. Okay. It's not a euphemism. That's like, what? The most obvious results of this well -funded criminal release ideology are more brutal acts of violence committed by countless violent criminals who are left off the legal hook and returned to the streets. Hey, Matt, I forget. Does tough on crime work better? Have we ever thought of this or tried this or evaluated this in any way?

0:37:53 Matt: Democrats have tried it many times. And yeah, no, it just doesn't seem to work. And also, what does this have to do with Lindsay Clancy? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just complaining about wokeness.

0:38:04 Thomas: Giving violent criminals a free pass, it's not a free pa - again, like, of this is about it's ok it's about your aren't in your right mind you still are your so are responsible it's she's still gonna be right Matt like locked away in a sense for a long time right I mean she's maybe not in In literal prison, but like it's not like she's just home free now, right?

0:38:24 Matt: Right. And the killing is always undisputed in any insanity case. Like, you're acknowledging that you did the thing, and it's not about getting over or not. It's just, yeah. But you know what I mean. But this stuff is just, this is typical Federalist nonsense.

0:38:35 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, see, giving violent criminals a free pass only punishes innocent Americans and delays true justice. Okay. Yeah. It should come is no surprise that after years of political and media messaging declaring all cops are bad, judges and juries get it wrong. Oh, what? Wait, what, but what are you saying about this jury? Weren't you saying they got it wrong? You're not allowed to say juries, get it, wrong, or you are allowed to, anyway. Judge and juries get wrong and bail bonds in jail are racist. Everyday Americans view the justice system and their participation in it as a place for activism instead of the rule of law. In particular are more susceptible to the emotional manipulation posed by progressive pro -crime psychological operations such as Black Lives Matter.

0:39:22 Thomas: Wow, progressive pro crime psychological operations. Black Lives matter was just like, hey, don't kill black people. How is that pro -crime? What are you talking about?

0:39:22 Matt: Multiple citations needed. You don't remember marching in the streets yelling, we love crime over and over again? That was my favorite chant from BLM. More crime, more crime.

0:39:41 Thomas: We love crime. The evolution of this pattern could not be more clear. What starts as affluent white female liberals, AWFL, screeching on social media, screeches quickly evolves into violence. Oh, I got to see what that is. Sorry. What is this one?

0:39:52 Matt: Awful. It is awful. I'm going to say that Jordan Boyd is a self -hating awful. Maybe she's not affluent, but she's certainly the other things.

0:40:06 Thomas: Here's how professional activists use guerrilla tactics to sabotage ICE arrests? That's the violence you're talking about?

0:40:11 Matt: Yeah, we've been through this. Yep.

0:40:14 Thomas: What? What

0:40:14 Matt: People whistling at ice. Don't whistle at ice, it's violence. People yelling at ice is violence, don't you know?

0:40:20 Thomas: The hell?

0:40:21 Matt: Ice watch. Yep, our friends at Direct Action Minnesota are doing the real violence, not ice.

0:40:21 Thomas: Yeah, radical groups. This is ridiculous. Okay. The radical victim mentality that has been force -fed to us for years. The guy you're defending is the one who was too emotional and couldn't get over the victimhood or whatever. Like, he's the one whose focused on that. I don't know what you're talking about. Through corporate media and social media is exactly what led to Devlin to be convinced that Clancy was not guilty of killing her kids. Well, that's not... Quite right. And shouldn't suffer legal punishment because she had an it's a wonderful life sign in her home and might have strangled the children out of a distorted sense of love.

0:41:04 Matt: We're pretty far off the rails here from the facts, but...

0:41:07 Thomas: Facts not feelings of solidarity or sympathy were supposed to guide the Clancy jurors as they determined her legal fate. Instead, deliberations were driven by a hero complex that will continue to erode the integrity of our legal system.

0:41:19 Matt: And I know that because I listened to a few seconds of one interview from one juror. So there you go.

0:41:23 Thomas: Jordan Boyden is award -winning staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalists Radio Hour. Okay. All right. We've got to check that out. It's going on our listening list.

0:41:35 Matt: I think they have internal awards, like at the Federalist Christmas Party, probably, you know, snappiest dresser, you nice, brightest smile, maybe some of those words.

0:41:43 Thomas: Most likely to succeed somewhere else. I don't know. Yeah, some different things.

0:41:48 Matt: Yeah, so there you. This is the piece that is attacking the jury. The next one is going to be honoring the juror, talking about what a hero he was for not following the law. So we'll get a little flip here.

0:42:00 Thomas: I wonder if anyone's ever going to regret having written all that. What do you think?

0:42:04 Thomas: Lionizing the domestic violence guy. Should we take our third break?

0:42:09 Matt: Yeah, let's do it.

0:42:09 Thomas: All right, let's take our last break. Thank you so much to our top patrons at patreon.com/law. Top 20, here we go. Bob Loblaw's Law Podcast, ET, Philly Basement Bar says we should take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honky Tonk Bar Association, Baltic Cate, Philip Kaiser, less of a stool pigeon and more of a bench seagull.

0:42:32 Thomas: Ah, great Where There's Woke references this week. Too bad Lydia is missing them. Corin Lan, a string of unpronounceable characters, Malaika Chandler, David in Brooklyn, Rhondathedork dot com, Milo Meadsong argues the plural form of Footnotes, kind of like Attorneys General, should be notes feetsies, Chris Waltrip, Easy Blasphemy, hors d'oeuvres in the court before we report, Sam Deneau, FRED R GROOTHUIS, Classic libtard, and Mitchell. Top patron to the stars, Mitchell. Well done. All right, we'll take that last break, and then we'll get to this final article here. Okay, Matt, here we go. Town Hall. What a Lindsay Clancy juror said about this case is just insane. What's Town Hall? I don't remember.

0:42:31 Matt: I like that. It's a conservative sort of blogging-ish platform. This is Town Hall's first appearance on Vapid Response, along with Matt Vespa's first Appearance. Matt Vespas, one of those people, has a very long resume of just being a Republican writer, and that's his deal. Really nothing else. So yeah, well, he worked for the first lady of New Jersey, Chris Christie's wife at one point, that's about it. Let's see what he has to say. I'm sure it'll be perfectly fine and reasonable. That's why we're here.

0:43:37 Thomas: Well, it seems to be largely similar right now at the beginning. Yes, the clip of one of the female jurors saying that the lone holdout, a black man, couldn't get past the fact that Lindsay Clancy killed her kids was widely circulated. That's nuts. It's why you're there, lady. The woman killed all three of her children in January 2023. Now someone is saying the case could potentially make it better for other women. This would be something good.

0:43:59 Matt: So he's just, yeah, he's abolished the insanity defense right there. Apparently, he doesn't believe in it at all, according to those sentences. It's not why she was there.

0:44:09 Thomas: Yeah, exactly. This would be something that could change something to make it better for other women, said juror Paul Devlin. Yeah, stupid quote. I don't really like that. So, letting a child killer walk is good for women. I'm sorry, how have we come to this point? I understand that postpartum, yeah, what?

0:44:25 Matt: She didn't walk. Let me just say that again.

0:44:28 Thomas: Again.

0:44:28 Matt: She's going to be tried again, and an NGR would not have been walking by far.

0:44:33 Thomas: Yep. I understand that postpartum depression and psychosis do exist. Most women don't kill their children, however. Oh, OK. So it exists, but like most of the time, it's not as bad as it is here. So therefore, it doesn't exist. I don't know. Yeah. Therefore, it didn't happen here. I know. Whatever. And if there's a fear of losing custody, if they come forward with their symptoms, that's something for the legislatures and experts to tweak. But that that

0:44:59 Matt: I don't even know what they would do. I mean, I don t think that was even a factor here, but sure,

0:45:02 Thomas: Doesn't make any sense. Well the yeah so the argument is why if women are afraid to come forward yeah that no I mean I would agree with that like that yeah so that doesn't that doesn' t like the of how the jury should have voted in this case like that's just kind of true regardless right I don't think that's what I don' t think that' s what this juror was trying to do it's not like Okay, if we vote not guilty by reason of insanity, that's going to mean that other women are less afraid to come forward with their symptoms? That doesn't really... that's not related. So that seems like a straw man argument there. Once again, another rinky -dink or outdated operation within our healthcare system has been exposed. What? What's that?

0:45:12 Matt: It's difficult. Right. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of argument that she was failed by the system, even though she did have access to some of the best health care.

0:45:55 Thomas: But is that what this person

0:45:56 Matt: But I guess, I don't really know what he's trying to say, to be honest, in a lot this.

0:45:56 Thomas: Is arguing? Rinky -Dink or Outdated Operation? Yeah. And no one wants to fix it, but you know what is always wrong? Murder. Oh, okay, okay. So maybe he is gesturing it? Yeah.

0:46:07 Matt: He really doesn't believe in any kind of mental health defense, it's pretty clear. He just doesn't think it should exist.

0:46:14 Thomas: Now we have Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, ripping into the lone juror who refused to acquit Clancy by reason of insanity. Is has led to a media witch hunt and this person is likely to be revealed all because he didn't want to let a child killer go.

0:46:30 Matt: Letting her go was not even on the table.

0:46:34 Matt: That's the whole thing. I actually thought there was more to it. No, there's more. There's definitely more.

0:46:43 Thomas: Matt didn't realize how short that first one was or something or misremembered, so there's actually this other one that's good too. From The Federalist, it's an all federalist, oops, all federalists day here. Men, get a hold of your Lindsay Clancy supporting girlfriends and wives before it's too late. Boy, yeah, the amount of sexism you can fit into one title.

0:46:54 Matt: Just about phrasing, get a hold of, yeah. And implied violence from Eddie Scarri, August 28th. Yeah. So. Yeah, that's kind of what we were talking about up top, about the manosphere reaction before the verdict.

0:47:14 Thomas: Yeah, this is, so is this before the verdict or whatever?

0:47:20 Matt: And yet, wait, and yet? There doesn't need to be an and yet. Okay.

0:47:22 Thomas: This is a culture where men are expected to never put their hands on a woman, and yet still, okay? And yet still men, you have got to check your Lindsay Clancy supporting wives and girlfriends.

0:47:37 Matt: That really sounds like he's saying hit him in the face if they support Lindsay Clancy. That's hard to miss, Eddie Scari. Somebody needs to check on him.

0:47:45 Thomas: That's a hell of a first sentence. Wow! This is about the safety of children, born and unborn, and not about whether women feel properly validated. Another, again, if you're on this side, this is the kind of guy whose side you're. Well, I know you're not supposed to hit women now or whatever, but like, so that's granted, but anyway, yeah.

0:48:07 Matt: Hashtag don't listen to women.

0:48:11 Thomas: Oh my God, dude. Another mother just attempted to murder all three of her young kids at home, according to authorities in North Dakota. She was sadly successful with two, authorities alleged having slashed all three their throats with a knife, though one of them survived. It's not clear that she was inspired by the Clancy case, though the similarities are undeniable. Hey, Matt, do we want to start doing, like, let's keep score of who does all the crimes, men versus women? Do we want

0:48:38 Matt: Especially the family annihilation crimes. They were like...

0:48:40 Thomas: Do you wanna - Quick tally, dude! Uh, what's his name again? Mr. Scari? Hey, Scary, you wanted to - this seems to be the moral panic you're going with. Oh, now there's women committing crimes everywhere. Okay, should we just do a quick tally? Who commits more crimes? Who kills their families more?

0:48:53 Matt: During the Lindsay Clancy case alone, during the 31 days that she was on trial, I'm sure there were five or six family annihilations because that's something that men do.

0:49:02 Thomas: I saw people sharing that it's horrible, but it's not big news when a man murders their entire family. By the way, and most of those, like, they're not because of - mental illness they're not because of a of a like break from reality some of them are but like for the most part those are because they have this very man's mindset here this author the same mindset that they must be allowed to control women and control and and that's losing that sense of control and killing their entire family lindsey clancy whatever you want to say she didn't do it to like Yeah.

0:49:34 Matt: He knows his audience. I don't think a lot of women read The Federalist. I'm just going to guess.

0:50:02 Thomas: Oh boy. Um, where was I? Like Clancy, 22 -year -old Kaylee Earhart allegedly told the father that she had thoughts of harming their children, going so far as to tell him, say goodbye to your kids.

0:50:18 Thomas: Okay, so then it sounds like he needed to protect the children better, right? I mean, so he knew ahead of time? Wow. The father had reportedly managed to take a gun from Earhart's possession and exit the house, leaving Earhart with the children before she is claimed to have knifed them.

0:50:37 Matt: It does sound like he has some responsibility here. I am sorry. That's dark.

0:50:39 Thomas: That's, yeah, that was not the way to go. That was not. The way to. Go. Look, these are tragedies and awful things, but like what, you know, I mean, maybe the, again, the message, I think the consistent messages here, like pay attention when women are talking about what they're going through. Maybe that would have helped in both these cases. I don't know. Possibly.

0:50:59 Matt: Or you could hit them. That is the other option.

0:51:01 Thomas: Jesus Christ. According to this guy, Clancy 36 is currently on trial facing murder charges for allegedly strangling her three young kids. Blah, blah, blah. We know all this. Her defense team doesn't deny that she killed the kids, only that she's not at fault and that Clancy is actually the victim of postpartum psychosis. I mean, and negligent medical providers, I guess, more that, who had hopped up, had her hopped on a dangerous cocktail of antidepressants.

0:51:26 Matt: I mean, even saying that she's a victim of psychosis, postpartum psychosis completely discounts a mental health defense. You're just saying that, yeah, she's just another victim.

0:51:33 Thomas: Isn't healthy behavior. It's true that Clancy's husband may have been negligent in failing to ensure his wife got the care she needed and in keeping his children away from her, given her professed intention to potentially harm them. It is also true that clancy's medical providers may have committed malpractice. That excuses her her kids and he's using as graphic language as he can to try to make the emotional point here. That Clancy attempted to kill herself and hysterically sobs in court doesn't bring back the lives she took. No one thinks it does. Whether she committed the killings under a state of emotional duress or not.

0:52:05 Matt: This is the third straight person now willfully misunderstanding the state of the law and how any of this works.

0:52:09 Thomas: Yeah. That any woman would loudly proudly claim fellowship with Clancy is abhorrent and it's the responsibility of any man, here we go, any man who associates with such a woman to insist she knock it off or disassociate himself completely. Clancy isn't a case about mental health. Such a sign that you're a sexist piece of shit that you are literally just writing to men because men are the ones you think can like change behavior and whatever and women are just like unreasonable.

0:52:37 Thomas: Wouldn't you want to write it like hey any women reading like here's why I disagree with you you know it's not it's like men yeah it's your job to reason with these things

0:52:37 Matt: Also, I... Get away from... Yeah. I think the good news for a lot of the men reading this is they've got now women in their lives to disassociate from. So, yeah. He's even embedding posts here from Women Saying It Could Be Me, which was the theme of this movement. It was like, I've had these thoughts. I know what the struggle is like. Listen to us, which is what we should be doing.

0:52:51 Thomas: I hope geez yeah yeah I don't think that means It could be me, therefore, let's let women kill their kids. It's more like this is a thing women like so many things women go through. It is something that society doesn't always care about or listen to. And so a lot of women are like, yeah, this could have happened to me as well. They don't mean that in a good way. They're not like fans of it. Stupid.

0:53:25 Matt: Not celebrating it at all. This next paragraph I agree with because this is we've talked about this before that like it is really unfortunate to sit there and try to do the like do your own defense like work out your own forensics when the defense did not include anything about anything these people are talking about on TikTok that's fine you know fair comment there and we can get a sadistic doom cycle that

0:53:43 Thomas: It's a sadistic doom scroll cycle that somehow passes for entertainment among bored middle-class women who convince themselves that independence is the same thing as a lack of accountability and consequence. They need a reality check and it is imperative that the men in their lives, their boyfriends and husbands, not let one escape them. No man who knows such a woman can afford to be quiet about the misplaced support of a child killer. The safety of children everywhere is at stake. Jesus Christ, what a misogynist piece of shit.

0:54:02 Matt: Is so dark just Not even trying to put a mask on. You're just straight up saying that we need to control our women better and get them in line. And if it means hitting them, then, you know, that's what we have to do.

0:54:25 Thomas: Eddie Scari is the DC columnist at The Federalist and author of Traitors, The Democrat Party's Collapse into Anti-American Filth. So, I don't know what that is.

0:54:33 Matt: I'd be very disappointed in any relation whatsoever to Richard Scarry, the Busytown author, a beloved American icon. You know, the little cartoons of the people going about their day. Yeah.

0:54:42 Thomas: That sounds familiar, actually, but either way. Oh, yeah, yeah.

0:54:46 Matt: Very cute.

0:54:47 Thomas: Wow, what a difference. What a different direction to go in. There's some different ways to go, I guess, with that name. But yeah, the Democrat Party's collapsed into anti -American filth. Subtle. Subtile. That's cool. Yeah,

0:54:50 Matt: Disgrace to the Scarry name. And that's Eddie Scari, who learned his craft from Ann Coulter, in case you couldn't tell. Sounds like it could have actually been written by Ann Coulter. He himself is gay, that's which an interesting angle to all of this. So I guess he doesn't have to worry about it.

0:55:16 Thomas: There - there's a lot of misogyny in the gay community.

0:55:19 Matt: He's also telling those of us with female partners what we should be doing with them. So thanks for that, I guess. I'll

0:55:24 Thomas: Is worth mentioning. We go. Previous work includes In Defense of Fox's Brian Kilmeade. Let's see what that's about. Well, Fox News morning host Brian Kilmeade saw this week that where there's one harmless joke to be made, there's an army of journalists ready to fake an injury. So here's the exchange. Steve Doocy, she's still married him. They're currently married. Kilmeade, I mean, look at Rihanna went back to Chris Brown right after. A lot of people thought that was a terrible message. Doocy. And then there's Jay-Z and Beyonce and Solange. That was also in an elevator. Kilmeade. But you notice Jay-Z didn't hit back. Doocy, there was some craziness there. Kilmeade. I think the message is take the stairs.

0:56:08 Thomas: And he wrote a whole article. Yeah, another domestic violence. Isn't that interesting? Wrote a whole Article defending this guy for a domestic violence joke. Oh boy.

0:56:08 Matt: A hilarious joke about domestic violence. Is comedy even legal anymore? Once again, gotta ask. Just gotten a pretty good range of bad opinions about the Lindsay Clancy trial, and I'm sure that you're hearing these in your own lives, listeners, so I hope you know the law a little better and how to respond to this. And I hope that we can listen to these issues, these very, very real issues, because this is a good time to do that.

0:56:40 Thomas: I think it's like everything. Know I link it back to my other work a lot, but it is I dynamic that's responsible for so much of this, which is the whoever the kind know, hegemonic group power is looks at Any opinions or movements or anything of the underprivileged people in society is so much more of a threat than the other way around. So this guy's domestic, the jurors domestic violence past or whatever, isn't a reason that all of anyone on that side is wrong. If you can find anything to point out from like women who are supporting Lindsay Clancy and saying weird things, that means the whole argument on that site is wrong, it's just this constant Over -emphasizing of finding, you know, nutpicking of finding like the worst quotes on one side and using it to discount the entire argument on that side. It's something that seems to only work one way and I don't know why that is. It is something I think about a lot. It just seems to be so much more effective because I think of the inherent biases of our society. So when it's a woman, when it is a person of color, the the nut picking as in the the finding of the worst examples because there's there's people who aren't great at talking or have dumb ideas on every single side of every issue I always say that there's always there's Always idiots you can find on any side of any issue and when you find them In support of things like Black Lives Matter or, you know, women's rights or whatever, for some reason, that's so much more resonant and effective than when you find the idiots on the other side. And it's just, it's a bias that our society has that we, and that I think social media magnified times a billion. And that's the main thing going on with our entire country and why it's

0:58:21 Thomas: Ruined.

0:58:22 Matt: And this trial. And Karen Reed, as we discussed on Monday, about just the very deleterious effects with all this. And I think it's worth noting, and I'm not going to comment on this too much, but the first author is a white woman writing about how women are too emotional to be on juries. And the last author we read is a gay man who's telling straight men what to do with their partners, right? These are people who are already themselves marginalized.

0:58:45 Matt: The two And of us speaking as men, I think that you've got to look out for men who are saying these kinds of things. I mean, I'd think it's on us to say something because they're not going to listen to anybody else.

0:58:55 Thomas: Man, you need to talk to your, your men who are saying stuff about women.

0:59:00 Matt: Yeah, especially something like this. I don't know, there's something really particularly disturbing about this scary thing.

0:59:06 Thomas: Isn't it just, it's the stance that we always find ourselves in, where it's like, yeah, you can find me a hundred quotes from people who are saying dumb things I don't agree with, well, about anything, but about Lindsay Clancy. Like, if people are saying the husband did it, yeah. That's stupid. The husband didn't do it. If people are say, you know, that they support her in ways that seem a little over the top, yeah! That's okay. That doesn't fucking change anything. Was a trial. The facts are the facts and the jury instruction is the jury instructions. And the one person involved who doesn't get that at the most and just refused and crossed his arms and said, no, I'm not going to listen, even though I have reasonable doubt, is the one juror they're all lionizing. You know?

0:59:44 Matt: Not the hero of the story here. Not at all.

0:59:46 Thomas: No. All right. Well, that's been Vapid Response. Thanks so much, Matt. So much everyone for listening. Oh, Lydia wanted me to make sure to mention that the book club, Matt, if you want to... Mention more of that. We already know who that is for this month.

0:59:59 Matt: September 27th, I'll be talking to Dave Wedge again and meeting to talk about his definitive book about Karen Reid. It's the first book about the Karen Reid trial, and I think it's great, Blizzard of Lies. You can hear more from Dave from Runde's show, but I'll meeting at 4 .30 PM. That's for any paid patron of the show.

1:00:13 Thomas: Awesome. That's a reason to be on patreon.com/law. And we are recording Coyote v. Acme for the Lotawful movies in a couple of days, end of the week. So that'll be coming out toward the end of month. That is another reason to on patreon.com/law, so thanks so much and we'll see you next time.

1:00:34 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon .com slash law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments at gmail .com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.