09-04-26 Part 6

0:00uh, lawyerly insights that Viva Frye can provide. Um, but I wanted to read this about it and I thought I'd do it before I brought him on. So it didn't have to sit there and listen to me read. But I thought this was just, I mean, this sort of overlays the entire topic is, it's a symptom. Like what happened with the Lindsey Clancy trial is a symptom of a society in a state of collapse. There's sort of like, the crack in the dam before the flood where it's like, I don't know if jury trials are a thing anymore. I don't know if this can exist anymore. An old sister, the system that we've been running this whole time used to work. I don't know if it works anymore for a variety of different reasons. And I'm not sure who posted this. I don't know if the crew can pull up, uh, because I want to give them credit, but they say this, the jury that I recently served on was hung because one, three jurors refused to discuss the evidence with an open mind. At the start of the deliberations, they simply declared, I will never change my mind on this. You could never convince me otherwise. They demanded a hung jury verdict in the first hour of deliberation

1:03simply because our initial vote was split. That of course is violation of jury instructions. Two, very few of the jurors were able to take the entire case in context and parse through it all the testimony and evidence to decipher what we believed was the truth. They all wanted to pick one testimony as the perfect telling and did not know how to decide given discrepancies between them all. Problem number three, two of the jurors kept objecting to points of discussion because of quote, bias that they claimed we were invoking into our deliberations. These jurors claimed that some of the evidence submitted during trial could not be considered by the jury because it would quote, trigger our biases. They kept interjecting quote, that's bias or your just biased or that's your bias, tainting the evidence. Other jurors responded to this defensively and would back down at the accusations. So I don't know which is the bigger problem. The people who just assert bias when they don't like something or the people who are too cowardly to just stand by their, stand by reality in the face of retard telling you otherwise. This is Matt Johnson, Matt Johnston at Matt

2:08on X. Number four, one juror in particular, totally woke, viewed the entire world as groups, oppressors and individuals, victims. And so would not accept anything as true right or good that could come from the group that they were the accusers. So the group is the accusers. And they defaulted to the individual, the accused as the only possible honest person. She refused to accept any testimony or evidence offered by the group and became visibly shaken and angry if any other juror questioned the integrity of testimony or testimony of the accused, a testimony that was filled with errors in contradiction. It's like, it's like all of the threads that we've been observing over the last decade, all like coming together. Right. How many, I mean, the me two movement, you have to believe all victims, right? This sort of communist, you know, a worldview that says they're oppressed and oppressors and the oppressors are always evil. They're always bad. And it's whoever's the bigger and powerful one. So in the case of a accused person being charged by the state, I mean,

3:10you got to go with the accused. It's like all of these little poisons that have been seeped into our veins, all manifesting it once. It's kind of amazing. Multiple jurors declared it was, quote, impossible to decide the facts of the case because there's no video evidence. They lamented that we don't have, quote, surveillance like in the UK and all public places. And as such, it would be impossible to determine the facts of this case. If they cannot see the events, they would not believe them. Six, several jurors could not understand the written law even after being provided explanations and instructions from the court. They simply could not comprehend, not that they disagreed. They just couldn't understand it. Finally, seven, two jurors kept interrupting the process of discussing, saying, quote, you're wasting our time and they kept telling us they needed to vote and they wanted to vote and go home and put this mess behind them. Alas, a hung jury was the right outcome, not because of the case, but because of the deficiency in the jury. Now, this was not the Tiffany or whatever it is, Lindsey Clancy case. This was a different case.

4:12How many courtrooms around the country are being subjected to this? Juries that like don't have the attention span or the character or the intelligence to even serve on a jury, but they will be sitting in the box, deciding your fate one day. David Fry, you can follow him on accent. Viva Fry. That's VIVA F R E I and of course, Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com Viva. How are you today, sir? Good. I thought it was going to be a hung jury. And then when they were talking mistrial, I thought it was going to be because of chicaneery, but ultimately a single holdout is what brought this to a mistrial, wild turn of events. So help break this down for us. Well, what's the difference between a hung jury and a mist trial? And what do you think actually was happening behind the scenes here? Well, as I've now been rightly corrected, all hung juries are mistrials, but not all mistrials are hung juries. So the second you have a jury, they declared a mistrial. When I, you know, I called a hung jury a little while ago, just because I thought

5:15it would be more than one. I thought it would be like, you know, three or four people saying not guilty by reason of insanity and the majority saying guilty. I didn't think it was going to be a hung jury this way. But as of yesterday, when we started seeing the, I mean, I think it was over the top or you know, to put it hyperbolicly, but certainly towing, tip towing a line of the conduct of Reddington by effectively putting on blast that jurors note, which singled out the loan holdout of a juror and basically put them on blast. And like, if this is not some form of jury intimidation, juror intimidation, I don't know what is because you have a week of deliberation. You don't know if it's eight versus four, nine versus three, which way it goes. Yesterday they come out and specify that it's 11 versus one. And it was so shocking of a disproportionate number. A lot of people thought it was 11 guilty and one holding out on not guilty. Right. And I'm like, that makes no sense because you never have the defense, Reddington, trying to then have that juror removed if that's

6:16the sole juror hanging in the way of a conviction. Then we find out today it's 11 who are vote, who are on the not guilty by reason of insanity and one loan holdout. And when Reddington comes out and says we know who it is, it's one guy, he's allegedly not following the law. And basically, we want a public voidier the next day. That is as much pressure or, you know, extensive measures that you can lawfully put on somebody, the holdout juror. And I just thought it was it was wholly bizarre. But ultimately it just came to a mistrial because one loan juror refused to concede and they declared it a hung jury. And so yeah, and so I want to get it sort of into what's happening next. But I agree. I mean, especially there was already one woman who's actually arrested for jury intimidation. Right. Because she was trying to, I guess, approach the jury and yelling things at them before is one of the protesters. So it sounds like the lawyers behavior would be out of whack regardless of the circumstance. But especially when you have what amounts to an angry mob outside. And he's going, we've identified the one juror. I mean, how is that not jury intimidation? And

7:21what are the legal remedies when a lawyer does? Like, as it seems unprecedented to me, has this ever happened before? And what would the remedies be? This is like, you know, I practice civil law up in Quebec. So I don't have any expertise in that. Would I know that I don't know something? I approached it with the requisite degree of uncertainty. So I see this. I'm like, this smells bizarre. Like just from a pure instinctual understanding of what justice and fairness is, it doesn't seem fair. You know, you're not supposed to disclose the deliberations to the public jury, the deliberations. And yet you have a juror, the jury for woman submitting this note, which is, to say it's drafted in a self-serving manner is an understatement. Basically saying, there's one big bad boogie man left on the jury and he won't budge and he refuses to apply the law even though he acknowledges it. And then they submit it to a judge, reading to demands and obtains the concession that this debate be held publicly, not by a private sidebar. And you basically are in anticipation putting a target on the sole holdouts back

8:26for when this is all over. They're going to know exactly who it was. And he will have been vilified and demonized in the eyes of a mob that is already sort of borderline off the rails. And that woman who's out there in a restricted area, taking pictures of jury members, then deleting them, then when she gets arrested saying I was just looking for Lindsay Clancy, and then they find deleted photos. And I think video in her phone, you know, it's, I don't know, if it's lawful, if it really skirts a line, it's as close as you can get and having it be lawful and ethical to basically say we know who it is. We know, and yesterday he was saying he heard, you know, just not specifying gender. Today it was like him. We know who he is. We know his number and we want you judge to publicly, basically cross examine him on the reasons for his opposition. I haven't met anybody with experience that says this was a typical normal stuff. I don't think it was. But at the end of the day, the judge just got to declare the mistrial because he had the one lone holdout. And before the judge could declare a mistrial,

9:29ready to then goes and gets a stay of the declaration of a mistrial so that he could petition the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to basically ask them to order this public war deer of the jury members. And I'm sure it was only for the purpose of intimidating that sole holdout to bend the knee and to potentially replace that juror with someone who would bend the knee to the other 11 jury members. So it's wild. It's absolutely crazy. And at the end of the day now, they're going to have to do another trial. And that might not be the worst result here. But yeah, no, it sounds like, you know, it sounds like 12 angry men, right? I mean, this is what we want to do. I mean, it just sounds so crazy. I'm worried about the future of jury trials in this country. And I want to get into that stuff and sort of, you know, comparisons to other trials as well. But now that it's a mistrial, I mean, this is kind of, I think it's kind of a good thing, right? Because they're going to have to retry this probably in a couple months. I would guess. And by that point, probably the, the, you know, media outrage will have simmered down. And maybe they

10:30can just have a nice quiet trial without all this interference, right? To me, mistrial is not the worst thing that could have happened out of this. No, it's not. I mean, I would imagine the worst thing. Imagine it would have been a not guilty, a unanimous not guilty by reason of insanity, where you'd have this woman institutionalized for however long or however short a judge so determines, but it's kind of shocking. Like, you know, it's, it's shocking that it was 11 to one, not guilty by reason of insanity. And so they'll have a new trial. And maybe the prosecution, you know, will do a better job. We'll know where the weak points lie. We'll maybe craft their closing arguments a little better. Prosecution started off its closing argument literally with the concession. In the first sentence, Lindsey Clancy was mentally ill. She did try to take her own life, but she was criminally responsible when she killed her kids. But before she jumped out of a window and paralyzed herself from the sternum down. So the prosecution, in my view, obviously could have done a better job. You don't start off your closing arguments by repeating the

11:31defense of the defense. And so they'll have a new trial. But the fact that after this 11 of the 12 were prepared to find not guilty by reason of insanity, I think that's that's that's very, very surprising. And depending on your political leanings, very discouraging that all but one, virtually unanimous would have found her not criminally responsible for what she did. I mean, especially when you look at the details and the fact that she clearly planned this out, she clearly knew what she, I mean, she knew what she was doing. I really don't think there's a debate to that. So yeah, it is shocking that even half of them let alone 11 to one. That is absolutely crazy. And then, you know, obviously the lawyer is reveling in sort of the prominence of this. And he's really enjoying and making the most out of the attention that he's getting. And the jurors showed up reportedly two or three of them, you know, wearing pink, which maybe they're just like pink, but that's what all the Lindsey Clancy supports are wearing. Is there any way for the judge to like, you know, investigate whether the jurors had done

12:34outside research is there, you know, admonished and not too. I mean, how do you, how do you guarantee that this media circus doesn't influence the jury or you just haven't a trust him? Well, I mean, like we've seen other cases where the violations by jury members were even more agree just in Roger Stone's case. I think it was Derek Chauvin as well. You've discussed, you have actual activists like almost as bad as runaway jury, but not quite as bad on the jury. Nothing comes of it. The threshold from what I understand is very high. In this case, there's not going to be anything coming of it because it's a mistrial regardless. But I'm going to be curious to know who the jury for woman is. The woman who wrote that note that disclosed that, which even the judge acknowledged ought not have been disclosed to the public. When he gives his statement today, at some point to the jury to, you know, try to get them to follow the law again. He's like, yeah, and in the future, if you have any other notes, don't specify the numerical breakdown of the deliberations. I'm like, if it was wrong to do going forward, it was wrong when they did it. And the damage is done

13:39already, but it's the nature of the beast. This is the risks and perils of a jury of your peers. The only problem is, Reddington didn't seem willing to accept it. You do a jury of your peers. Like the judge said, you're going to have to abide by that jury finding for right or for wrong. You don't just get to pick and choose at the end so that you end up with the jury that will give you the verdict that you want. So at the end of the day, you had one guy who will hear his story sooner than later was not or was there was no doubt in his mind that she was criminally responsible when she killed her kids and 11 other people who refused to accept that. And Harrison, another prediction, may or may not come to fruition. We're going to find I suspect we're going to find out that there were a couple of more people who within the last week were brow beaten into going on the side of the 11 because you don't get a week of deliberation. It wasn't a holdout of one from day one. And I think they managed to convince the other two or three or four. We'll find out. And you had one holdout who said,

14:42I'm not going to be pressured into this. I'm not coming to this conclusion because I refuse to follow the law. I've come to this conclusion because I am following it in my view. And you have to live with that. But the pressure tactics that that Reddington that that jury four person put out there today, it's as dirty as you can get within the bounds of the law to the extent it was within the bounds of the law. Right. Yeah. And definitely pressing up against the envelope there. And yeah, I agree with you. And I would actually like to see almost a new version of 12 angry men. It will be nine angry men, two nine angry women, two angry men and one cool dude. We'll come over the title later. But yeah, what happened there? What happened? It was almost the opposite. 12 angry men. You get one stand out who slowly converts everybody. I wonder if there was one person that was the not guilty side and she maybe she's slowly convinced everybody fascinating how this could have turned out. And again, it's like, I don't know if you were listening for the first five minutes. I read this account from somebody about his experience with jury trials

15:42and just how it doesn't work. I mean, the people are like, we just want to go home, whatever answer we need to get. The other half people don't seem to be capable of actually discerning truth from falsehood and everything on the stand. They just take for the, I mean, what do we do about juries these days? Viva, I mean, I know the UK has already done away with jury trials. If the sentence is less than three years, you don't even get a jury. I'm afraid we're going in that direction. But I don't know if it's, I don't know what we have a better choice when our, you know, our population is too dumb or immoral to actually uphold their oath. Like, what do you do? What is the future of jury trials here, Viva? Well, I mean, in Canada, we've effectively done away with jury trials for any civil matter. You have them for some criminal matters. But it's a, it's a, it's a bizarre thing because you realize if you just take the average person you come across on any given day, you realize the fragility of the human condition and the, you know, the, the call it lack of education of your average individual and not education in a formal sense, just the,

16:43the lack of information in your average person on, on specific issues and then you slap them on a jury. I still, you know, rather have that than have it be in the under the control of the black robe. No, exactly. And it's, the way it was intended to work, the only problem is, you know, when it doesn't go exactly the way you want, then you try to start, you know, looking for ways to circumvent it. And in this particular case, you know, it's interesting. People are going to be outraged that it was 11 to 1 in, you know, in support of not guilty by reason of insanity. It's still the better way for this to have gone because at the end of the day, you're not convicting it on innocent men. You might be acquitting or letting go a guilty person, but in this specific case, it would have been up for the system to decide whether or not she's institutionalized and for how long. And sometimes people say, you're almost better off in jail than in the mental institution. So it's not like, it would have been much worse in my view if it was 12 people, 11 people trying to pressure one person to convict an innocent man so they could go home as opposed to people saying we're going to acquit a potentially guilty person because we've

17:45manufactured a reasonable doubt in our minds for whatever the reasons. So it was still on the better side of, of, you know, problematic juries. But, you know, the other interesting thing is if this is the new precedent, expect to see, if not copycats, people raising this argument. And given the jury instructions that the judge gave, it's exceedingly difficult under circumstances like this for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of a state of mind. Because I mean, that is what the jury basically told the judge, the jury. Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy was not impaired by a mental defect when she killed her kids. You got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a negative. It's very difficult. And, you know, regardless, expect to see this defense being raised a whole hell of a lot more now. And, you know, with whatever consequences that, that brings. Well, and that's saying something because it seems like every major trial we cover has the insanity defense invoked. And is this a new phenomenon? It just feels like it's becoming way more common. Am I just noticing it more? And it almost seems like it's a self-fulfilling sort

18:50of thing where you go, the mother who killed her kids, she must be crazy. I mean, to kill your kids is crazy. So therefore, she's insane. Just like with, you know, arenas de rousse gets like, the dude didn't gain anything. He didn't have a reason to do it. Who stabs a random moment on a subway crazy people. He must be insane. It's almost like the insanity of the crimes themselves become evidence of the insanity plea. I don't understand the value of the insane. I don't think we should even have an insanity plea. And I'd be okay with just getting rid of it and just going back to guilty or not guilty. I mean, what's your take on the whole insanity plea thing? Well, back in the day, it used to be guilty, but insane. And so you'd still be found guilty, but you would be insane. And so there's sort of a qualifier to the criminal intent. The argument is that if you commit a crime, you're necessarily insane by definition. I mean, the reality is there is jurisprudence. There's a distinction between being mentally ill and being criminally not responsible. And you can think of examples where your mental illness, it's a real thing. It basically ran as you some form of automaton. In the case of the guy that killed Irina

19:53Zorutska, you're dealing with diagnosed schizophrenia. And in as much as there is under the law, a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, that would fit the bill. And even in this particular case, you're also getting close to if the defense exists under the law. This is a pretty close case that fits the definition. Someone who's diagnosed with mental illness, there's several months documented a descent into some form of deeper psychosis mental illness. But it is true. It's not just because you're crazy that you're criminally not responsible. But there are cases of people who threw involuntary intoxication or voluntary intoxication, but adverse side effects or whatever have breaks from reality where in a criminal sense to the extent the defense exists, it's applicable. This one was, I say, borderline for some, not borderline for others. The evidence was there that there was premeditation, that there was calculation, which people take to mean you don't get to plead insanity because even if you were mentally ill, you're still criminally

20:54responsible. But I don't know that we're seeing more of it now. I think we're definitely placing more emphasis on it now. It's making bigger headlines now. But these cases have been around forever. They've been around and they'll be around in the future. There is a defense out there. It's case by case. And then the only question is in this case, was it applicable? Was it the valid defense? And if one person says no, do you get to replace that juror just so you can come to a unanimous finding because you have one hold out? Right. And it just seems like, well, you know, I don't know, it just seems like how are you going to have a jury system when you can pick and choose, you know, oh, you got the wrong decision here. We're replacing you. I mean, it just feels like a president that you don't want to set. We can go quickly. Let's go quickly here to clip 31. Because you referenced this clip and we'll just show people if they haven't seen it. This is the judge who instructing the jury about the note, you know, being shown to everybody with the jury members number on it. Let's go to clip 31 here. Good morning, everyone. What I want to do is first ask you those questions and then move on from there. So the first question

21:55as we all know is going to be, is any member of the jury red, senior, or over or anything from any source about this case, it would affect your ability to be fair and impartial, Joe. All right. The last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your services of jury in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time? Thank you. All right. So I did get the note yesterday and one thing I would say if there's, if there are any notes in the future and I'm not saying there are, but if there are, just don't, make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically. Okay. But what I wanted to do was give you, go over one thing. I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing

22:59you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our pellet courts. And it applies to everyone and you must apply the law as I have instructed you that you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you. You should still have them back there with the jury. And with that, you may now resume your deliberations. All right. So I didn't even realize I got that video from from your account at the Viva Fry on X. I mean, what's your take from that statement from the judge? Can you appreciate how bad it is the what violation he felt the need to politely admonish just in the future? Please don't break it down because now we know it's one person, one single solitary individual and it's that much easier to pressure them, to coerce them into bending the knee. It's it's egregious. But I know in the after statements, after the judge formally declared a mistrial, I don't know if you noticed he referenced World War II and how the Brits were the last force or the only force standing against the Nazis.

24:02And I honestly, I don't know if that was a shout out to the lone juror who stood his ground against the 11 other. Or it was just a maybe a poorly advised analogy or comparison to people doing their duties and serving country. But like people have to understand what that judge just said there. In the future, don't do that because it's a clear violation of the rules I presume and it's totally inappropriate and it could itself falsify and taint the entire process. But yeah, it's it's done now. So yeah, damage done damage the damage was done. Just don't do more damage in the future. Yeah, no, it absolutely makes no sense. And that's so funny that you say that thing. Maybe the crew can find that famous picture where the one guy is not doing the Nazi salute. That's the that's the holdout juror there standing like a bulwark against the the crowd. I mean, it's just insane. And I mean, is this judge is this judge have a problem with this stuff because there were a lot of complaints about his instructions throughout the trial. I mean, how much how much role does the judge have in this sort of mishap? So my understanding because I was sort of not critical but skeptical.

25:07It sounded like the judge was teeing it up for an acquittal or not guilty by reason of insanity by saying, you know, specifying what the burden of proof by all accounts of legal minds who actually, have more knowledge than me. He was basically reading the instructions. And so he also said today, so look, I'm just reading the instructions when when the reddington was asking him to like be more forceful in his cajoling of the outstanding loan holdout. And the judge is like, I'm not an actor here. I'm not a player. I'm literally just reading the instructions. And so that is what it says. You got to abide by the law and here's the law. So whether or not the system is set up for a not guilty by reason of insanity finding in a case like this, I say, I won't second guess it. I've been told that his instructions were fair and just buy the letter. But what's clear is that other things were not a fair and buy the letter today. And he so much that he felt the need to tell the jury, don't do it again. And then by the way, reddington after that said, I don't want to admonish the jury for person because it'll sound like she did something wrong in that letter.

26:11She did something wrong with that letter. And I suspect when this is all said and done and everything, you know, the fog clears, we'll see whether or not that jury for person was in fact an activist who was resorting to bombshell. You will not be disappointed practically every caller we have talks about some way it's literally changed their life. And no matter what you order now, you will get a free bottle of the CMOS gummies. One of my favorite supplements on the store spend over $99 you get a free tub of tallow, no matter what your contribution goes directly into this fight for Western civilization and all that entails. And of course, you get a fantastic product in return, the auction on store.com with that. I once again welcome Viva Fry to the show. You can follow him on X at the Viva Fry. That's F R E I's how that spelled. And of course, you can go to Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com to find all of his content. There are so many sort of implications from this. And I maybe it's just the paranoid conspiracy in me. Viva, but like are we being set up to welcome AI juries? Do you think you think AI is going to be the solution to

27:14the problems that the Lindsey Clancy trial has revealed to us? Funny, I thought you were going to go with the angle. Is this going to bring us to the postnatal abortion argument, which a lot of people think like if you tolerate or support abortion, then why limited at conception. And when you have people talking about actually aborting fetuses in delivery and keeping fetuses or eight month old born babies comfortable while you decide what to do with them, you know, it is interesting whether or not you could ever use AI to adjudicate a case like this. I think before we even the bigger risk of AI acting as a jury is basically having AI thought crime prevent all to begin with. And we live in like a minority report type world. It is weird conceptually, if you eliminate the human element, the human frailties from this decision making process, you in theory would have justice in all cases. I go from a more philosophical perspective,

28:15it's the human element. I think that understands what justice is. But I'm not so concerned about AI taking over the role of juries. What I am concerned about is in real time AI bots creating not division, but creating social trends that would otherwise never occur on their own that appear to be organic, but are actually totally inorganic to the point where you mobilize people to get out there and literally stand in solidarity with post videos to ex, to Twitter to the other one there, TikTok of women doing absurd inhumane things as some sort of standing with who they now view to be the oppressed. And the idea that you can frame this as Lindsey Clancy, being the oppressed and the oppressor or the children, this is a sort of a mass formation psychosis that I think is being spurred on by inorganic forces online. At the end of the day, whether you agree with it or not, this case could shed some light on the psychiatric industrial

29:20complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, how these drugs are being just recklessly and negligently over prescribed, how they carry with them certain invariable bad side effects that are on the labels themselves. And when there are mass shootings, people say, well, was the kid on SSRIs? The only thing should be in those contexts, nobody says was the kid on SSRI to absolve them of criminal responsibility. It's only a question of determining whether or not there are contributing factors to this phenomenon, yet in this case, it's were there SSRI contributors that would absolve the individual of the criminal liability responsibility of having killed her three kids. But of the forces that play right now that are inorganic, I think the artificially propping up and promoting of these support trends and these grotesque videos of women, you know, faking terrible situations with babies, you know, they're walking down the stairs with a real baby and then throw a doll over. That's where I think you have some very, very sick social conditioning. I would argue spawned on by foreign governments for the purposes of sowing discord within this country. That's

30:23where I think the biggest risk is right now. Well, absolutely. And that was that was the exact question I was going to ask you actually was was that exact thing and the crew, y'all are both presidying what I was going to say because I was going to play that video as well. There's a video of this bot farm and we've seen them before and I've seen them in China where you just have thousands of phones all running different accounts at the same time. You can really get things trending with that. I mean, if the crew can play the video again, there are thousands, these are thousands of accounts being run simultaneously by some advertising firm by some firm that runs these bots on behalf of corporations or somebody or foreign governments or interest groups. So it would not be hard to manufacture a movement like this and especially and, you know, women are more vulnerable to it. They're more likely to sort of go along with trends than men are and it's just a matter of test austere and they know how to manipulate people into this sort of stuff. That is very scary and I wonder if it's not if it wasn't the big pharmaceutical companies because you know, I saw video today where somebody was relating this to Crispin, why Crispin, why was the champion, you know,

31:28professional wrestler and actually very similar circumstances using exercise equipment to kill his children and his wife and at the time people looked at the steroids steroids he was taking and said this could have been an aggravating factor and there were processes put in place for testing and they limited the use certainly at the wrestling, but at the nationwide level a big discussion about the effects of steroids was had after that and it feels like the first time I heard about Lindsey Clancy, it was this woman on dozens of SSRIs killed her children and I could see big pharma with billions of dollars in SSRI profit yearly going, okay, we need to we need to change the discussion here. It can't be about the SSRIs. What if we try to blame it on the dad? What if we because it really is inexplicable where all these theories came from. There's no proof for any of them. Again, this is my this is my conspiracy theorizing, but obviously the damage that this is done already to women and women relationships. I've heard about marriages that have come apart because the mom

32:30is posting things in support of Lindsey Clancy and there have been copycat murderers. I mean, clearly if there's one group of people that would sacrifice the well-being of the American populist and the cohesion of our social structure for the profit from medicine, you know, it'd be big pharma. So yeah, I think I think this whole thing could have been manufactured by all sorts of people with bad intentions for the American people. I forget the name of the experiment. It's not the Milgram experiment, but it's the experiment where they took one person of 12 and everyone else is in on the experiment except for the person and they you know, they have two lines and one line is clearly longer than another. The astray experiment, I think. And every one of the 11 says, oh no, the shorter one's longer to the point where the the only person who's not in on it conceives and you know, basically makes up fiction because he thinks he's got you to conform to the crowd. Here, it's you know, similar idea, but a little bit different when people see or perceive that there's some form of broader support for their views or when they see what they think is a

33:30popular opinion, they're going to be more inclined to agree with it, adhere to it and even if it is totally anti-human. And so there's no doubt in my mind either it's by trolling, either it's people looking for attention, either it's people looking to monetize it, but you manufacture not a consensus, but what looks like public support for a movement and you can then get people to like the use felidias that they are partaking it on their own. There's zero doubt on my mind that that's going on right now. The only question is, is it foreign nations doing this? Is it bought accounts? Is it just trolls looking for attention? Is it people looking to monetize it? Is it just the algorithm sort of rewarding this type of stuff? Nobody know, we could be directing it. It could just be a natural consequence of the particular algorithm that's running on TikTok, right? There's that too, like the that which people engage with is typically negative and even if they engage with it negatively, so be it, but if they see enough of it and they think it's actually real, they'll engage with it positively. But even going back to the wrestler guy who killed his

34:34wife, kid and then took his own life, you know, back then people were looking at CTE as a potential angle, steroids as a potential, but not for the purposes of eliminating criminal responsibility. And that's where in the Lindsey Clancy case, one of the more nuanced issues was how they could get to manslaughter. And there are cases where you have involuntary intoxication. Somebody, when they spike somebody's drink with LSD, if they flip out, go psycho and kill somebody, they've got a legitimate defense of being out of their mind and not because they voluntarily took drugs. If you voluntarily take drugs and you have a psychotic episode, the argument is that you put yourself in that position in the first place, you may not be guilty of premeditated first to remurder, but you're guilty of manslaughter. Even with the steroid drugs, it was never a question of washing the hands of the individual and saying, beyond his control, it was, you took drugs and you didn't take the proper precautions to protect those around you from the potential side effects of the drugs you were taking. I mean, you had that question in this case, but it's

35:34wild what happens when things get so politicized and just oversimplified to black and white, where it's conceivable that drugs had a role to play here. It's conceivable that they might have had a pivotal role to play here. But then at the end of the day, the question is, you take these drugs, you know they come with warnings of homicidal, suicidal ideations, you know that they've been involved in situations like that in the past. And then it's just a question of, you get to wash your hands of this and give basically a, literally, a get out of jail free card or potential to anybody who's taking these drugs and then does something that says, whoops, side effect of the drugs, flip side. However, just you got to argue it up in Canada, there was the case of David Carmichael. This is a Canadian dad who took, I think, I don't know if it was so lofty, it was one of these drugs. Had a psychotic episode strangled as 11-year-old killed kid in a motel room, he was found to be criminally not responsible. He tried to sue the pharmaceutical companies. It was dismissed due to statute of limitations or something, but he started, you know, an awareness movement for this. If at the end of the day people become sensitive and sensitized to the idea that these drugs

36:39can trigger homicidal and suicidal ideations. And so maybe exercise the utmost of precautions before taking them as a mere quick fix, easy solution to whatever temporary problems you're going through. That might be a fringe benefit, but at the end of the day, if this is going to be the new defense, expect a whole hell of a lot of people to raise it. And then going back to the jury instructions, it'll be very difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when you did what you did, you were not suffering from a mental defect. Yeah, and it, well, it just seems like regardless of the guilt or the innocence, the discussion should be had. And I've just been so disappointed, really, because I, you know, sort of going, well, you know, these women are kind of crazy. But if this turns out to generate a discussion nationwide about SSRIs and the dangers of them, you know, you can believe that they're so dangerous, they made her do it. So therefore she's not criminally responsible or they're just dangerous enough to push her over the edge. And she saw regardless, where's that discussion that I've seen none of that, which is why again, I get suspicious of it's probably big farmer or somebody like it who doesn't want that discussion to be had because that seemed like the natural course that it was initially

37:42going and all of a sudden people started talking about the dad doing it when there was no evidence for that at all. All of the evidence was the contrary. I look for the source since the source is not reality, right? It's got to be coming from somewhere. So yeah, I just think where's the conversation about it? Even outside of the, the determination between guilt and not guilty, where's just the talk about the danger of these, you know, I keep saying we're lucky she didn't shoot up a school, right? I mean, at least she only went after her own kids because SSRIs are very often connected to some of the worst mass shootings, mass killings in American history. And every time we avoid this through this topic, we avoid this conversation. Because the easy fix is, you know, to go after the tool of the of the killing or, you know, it's the guns, it's the guns, it's the guns. The reality is there is, there are multiple forces at play for this. You're dealing with a society that is mass overprescribed these drugs that ultimately people don't even really know what they do, you know, they have a rough idea they tinker with the brain, but they really don't know what they even do

38:46how they function. And they prescribe them after a, you know, a 10 minute consult with a general practitioner as though they have no negative consequences, you get people addicted to them in many cases where you can't even come off them. And they know that they, they, you know, they trigger, they remove inhibitions for suicidal ideations. And it happens time and time again, but then the bottom line, you take these drugs, the argument here is you don't get to use that as a defense when you do it in full awareness of fact and law. And this nurse that was Lindsey Clancy taking these drugs in full awareness of fact and law. There are a number of issues at play in this particular case, but I'll just, you know, going back to it. The fact that it was 11 to 1 was mildly surprising. These cases, you know, the Aurora shooter, people have done a set also. There are psychopaths out there, schizoprenics, evil people who are still criminally responsible, even though they are

39:47certifiably insane. And at the end of the day, also, you'd say, if you agree with the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, there's going to be cases where you're going to have to adopt it. If you don't agree with it, and I can pull the other side, he was like, no, once you kill someone, it doesn't matter why you did it. If it was beyond your control, this is sort of where I'm at. Once you do that, you're either in jail for the rest of your life or you're in an institution for the rest of your life, but you are, no one's going to convince me that at some point in the future, a woman who murdered her three kids is not going to be a potential risk for society at large. There was another case in Canada of this guy who has psychotic schizophrenia episode on a greyhound bus, randomly stabs the person sitting next to him. His name was McClaim. Cuts his head off, cuts the ears off. This is simple. And, you know, bona fide psychotic and known would deny that he was criminally insane. Gets out of an institution seven years later, changes his name and and and upsconds into anonymity. Once you've done certain things, you've eliminated yourself from the the the the table of society. And so whether you're in a jail or an institution,

40:52you've relinquished, you know, your right to be at the table of the humans. And I think that's argued most people are with this just to see 11 of the 12 say that's not where we are with this and that she could be out in a matter of a few years is is disturbing to say the least. Yeah, there are other examples I was hearing about as well. I think there may have been another one in Massachusetts or somewhere in the Northeast, but it was a long, long time ago. I think it happened in like the 50s or so, but it was the same type of thing. Woman killed her three kids, went to a mental hospital, got out. The husband actually stayed with her through the whole time. She literally did it again. They had they had more kids and she killed her kids again. A second time, like 20, like 12 years later or something. So it's like once you've shown the you of the capability to do something like this, I agree. I think that's it. You're no longer sitting at the table with the humans. I think that's the it's just the best way for the public to deal with this. It's unfortunate, but some people just can't handle being in public. And that's just how it is. And go ahead. Or if there's if there's so detached from reality, like you come back once you've

41:56gotten that detached, there is nothing to say you won't get that detached again. And there's plenty of people who are schizophrenic crazy and don't show violent tendencies. And so that's it. It's like the bottom line. It's it's not your fault. Fine. It's not my fault or the judges fault that they have to put you in an institution for the rest of your life. That's how it should be. And you know, once once they go to the mental hospital, it's sort of out of the law's hands. Right. I mean, the mental hospital can say, well, they're cured. So they get to go or we're covering a case last week of a guy who was in a mental hospital, having been convicted of murdering his landlord. In the hospital gave him, you know, 48 hour day passes and he used his day pass to go get a passport and flee a country and flee to Turkmenistan where there's no extradition policy. So, you know, it's not the same. You know, people sort of treat as well, even if they get declared not guilty by re they still have to go, you know, be locked up for the rest of their life. Well, not necessarily. It actually kind of goes into a whole different realm of very arbitrary decisions in a lot of cases. So I just this whole, you know, the whole thing about not guilty by reason of insanity. I think it's got we got to have some real solid definitions because I keep

42:59seeing it crop up in cases where I don't think it belongs. Oh, no, there's no question about that. But also when people say bring back insane asylum and, you know, out of necessity, even then yet, I was following that story as well. This guy killed his landlord. He gets off his 48 hours unsupervised release and then goes to Turkmenistan. And it's it's some, I appreciate, you know, you don't want to lock up an innocent person. And I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person get locked up. We're not at that point. And the only question is mentally ill, if that's the conclusion prone to violence and extreme violence, that's it. You're done. It's not like a bipolar episode where you go get lithium for six months and then you get released. If you haven't shown violent propensities, you are unreliable much like any dog that has ever shown aggression again, you just can't have them around kids period. They can be a nice dog nine out of 10 times, jack him up on whatever, you know, medications you want. They

43:59can't be in the company of the vulnerable. And that should be the same for mentally ill people who have shown propensities for extreme violence. Well, and the other impl, you know, very disturbing implication is the what's the family of the landlord think? I mean, they, you know, we offload our, you know, desire for justice and revenge on this system. If the system just lets the guy fly to Turkmenistan, I mean, you know, there's going to come a time where people go, I'm not turning this guy into the police. I'm going to deal with him myself because every time the criminal goes to the police, they get led out, I get dragged through the court for three years and then they're free to go. I'm not going to trust our system. I mean, it seems like there are big chunks of our system that are sort of falling down to the wayside. And there's going to be a point where it's less efficient than just handling it yourself. And then we're in like full on anarchy, which may be preferable to tyranny, anarchy tyranny. But on that note, well, anything to say about that running a little bit out of time. So I got a few more things I want to ask you. But just on that note, what do you think? I would just say that that you're describing the descent into anarchy tyranny because anybody who takes justice into their own hands, they'll get the full

45:01brunt of the law. Exactly. Who they were talking about locking up for years for the, the Dometrio Daga, the guy up in New York state who owned unlawful firearms, they're going to try to put him away for 40 years. The people who they can punish, they'll punish. But, you know, the gang banger, well, we need restorative justice. So anybody who takes the law into their own hands, they'll come down with the full force of the law while simultaneously absolving the repeated criminals and the most culpable. That's that is the anarcho tyranny that I think they do want to go for because then it allows for the full AI surveillance law cameras surveillance state. Yeah. And I'm just, you know, it's I'm fine with anarchy. If we want to do anarchy, I'm kind of fine with that like that. I'm kind of okay with that. But yeah, it's the it's the combination that is really deadly. And then, but then there's stuff like this. And, you know, just expanding out from the Lindsey Clancy trial, this is this vice president at Bank of America who was stabbed and you've got leftist celebrating it. So we've gone from like, you know, kill the CEO of the insurance company to like, it kill a mid-level manager at your local bank. And

46:04it's and people think this is righteous and good because they've damaged society, you know, somehow and they call it societal murder because the insurance company blocked the payment that caused somebody to die. So really everybody in the insurance company is, you know, guilty of murder. So there's really these are big, big problems. How do we solve this? Well, I don't know that people even know all the details. I'm sure your audience does. This was a 32 year old mother who just came back from maternity leave for five months to go back to work. And it wasn't a targeted assassination like with Luigi Mangione. It's just some bat hoop crazy person with a history of mental illness, but who had never shown any signs of violence if you believe that part of it, who randomly stabbed her and another guy, she got stabbed in the abdomen too. It's like, it's a trophy, but you have people, and again, you have people celebrating it. Do I believe it's organic and do I believe there's a real people? I'm not sure. But at some point, when other people who are on the fence morally speaking, see what they perceive to be real people

47:08celebrating this, that's how you create this unnatural momentum. And you sort of inorganically make something look organic, these socially destructive movements. And when you have, I won't name any names, but people out there who seem to celebrate or condone it of, you know, identifiable notoriety, you create your own monster. And with this particular situation, the fact that anybody started celebrating it once they discovered it was a mid-level executive at a bank, a 32 year old woman, a mother like it's all crazy. I don't believe that the people celebrating it are naturally or it's a real or organic people, but then they sort of their presence makes other people think, oh, some people are doing it, let's get behind it. And that's how you create these very, very dangerous movements. Well, it's just your typical extremism, isn't it? It's sort of all of the new onts of who the person actually is fades away because it's the oppressors versus the oppressed. Anything is justifiable because, you know, it's a fight for human liberty. So anybody in our

48:09way has to die. I mean, it's just it's your classic sort of communist extremism, you know, affecting people to a very large degree. And I just, I worry that one day I'm going to be on trials and where there's going to be four of these women on the jury who they know I'm not guilty, but, you know, I am a right winger. So I should probably be punished for that. And they'll just do it this way, you know, through through being on the jury. As we saw with Derek Chauvin and the guy wearing the black lives matter, the shirt with the George Floyd on it, yet when he took his oath to be a a jury member, he promised that he had no preconceptions about it. So I really, you know, I don't know, I don't know what the solution is here. All I can do is identify the problems, I guess. No, and put them on blast. The idea that again, the Derek Chauvin case, you live through that, you see the witness intimidation with the expert witness in this particular case. I mean, we sort of already moved on from that woman, Dawn Light, who was arrested for the jury intimidation. Another registered nurse who seems to be very satisfied with the limelight that she put her in,

49:10her put herself in. It's a question on the one hand, like, you have your victimhood status, a society that's governed by your victimhood status, and your oppressor status that you constantly invoke in order to give yourself the social credit, the social legitimacy to basically be vigilante criminals or whatever. And then you love the attention that you get with it. So it is, it's a very, I don't know that it's new. I mean, I'm pretty sure that they've written about this in the Bible, Harrison. We were talking about this in Austin. This is the human condition, and this is just the latest iteration of either revelations or Sodom and Gomorrah or whatever, but it's the latest iteration of the human condition, which is people will do atrocious things when they think they have the political permissions lip and moral pass to do it. 100% worth.