The Ben Shapiro Show - Ep. 2500 - BREAKING: Judge Threatens Mistrial In Lindsay Clancy Case

0:00Tired of your car insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence, download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai slash wire. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First, you know, 20 years ago, and a lot has happened in my life. I was 22 years old. I was not yet married. Now, just think back over the past 20 years. Wife, five kids, big business, all of it. What? 20 years of long time, simply safe is now celebrating 20 years. Again, most companies don't make it that long unless they're actually solving a real problem. When you're picking a security system for your home, while you're looking for a piece of mine, the goal is not to obsess over your security. The goals you never have to think about it again. And that's what I like about simply safe. Most home security systems are designed for after something goes wrong. After the window

1:00breaks, after someone gets inside, after your phone buzzes, simply safe approach is different. It's designed to help stop a break in before it happens. They're AI powered outdoor cameras to text suspicious activity around your home. Alert live, US based agents. Those agents can actually speak through the camera to scare off trespassers and if necessary, request 911 dispatch. Prevention beats reaction. Simply safe has been protecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate their anniversary with us and save 60% on your new Simply Safe system at SimplySafe.com slash Shapiro at 60% off at simplysafe.com slash Shapiro plus when you order right in our show name and the how did you hear about a survey? So let them know we say there is no safe like Simply Safe. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at MintMobile.com slash switch. Up from payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months plan required $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only

2:02greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See terms. All right folks, we are alive. The Lindsay Clancy trial is effectively done. Right now we are waiting to find out whether an appeal by the defense lawyer to hold off on the mistrial because you want to try to cudgel one additional juror into just a full acquittal. We're still waiting on that, but effectively this is a mistrial. Apparently 11 won in favor of acquittal one person in favor of conviction. We're going to get to all the details and break down the case. I have a feeling I'm to disagree with some of the co-hosts here at Daily Wire. One of those people is of course Michael. Michael joins us on my Michael. Thanks for taking the time and appreciate it. Thanks for having me because I think you were working in tandem with the judge in this case. I just wrapped my show. I no sooner did I end it. I took my stage makeup off. They say mistrial and Lindsay Clancy. The one fact that is not being reported here though is everyone is attacking this lone male juror, notably the defense attorney who in I think an egregious display comes out and singles out this juror. One thing that's not being reported is the juror obviously was suffering

3:04from postpartum depression. So he can't be held accountable for any of his actions. And now we have a mistrial. So it shouldn't everybody be happy? So Michael, one of the things that I find very interesting about this case is that I look at this case and it's a pretty complex pattern. I actually do not think looking at sort of how psychiatry is done. There's sort of a fake thing that happens in psychiatry where we assume that people are capable of pure easy diagnosis and drugs are extremely effective in psychiatry and neither one of those things are true. I mean, if you spend any time with psychiatrists or with the DSM or people who have dealt with psychiatrists or the DSM or medication, as I've said before, it's probably the least developed area of all medicine. Psychiatry is incredibly vague. Basically, these things are diagnosed on the basis of checklists and they're based on a person's self reported symptoms. And then when it comes to psychiatric drugs, very often it's basically trying different combinations of berries. It really is almost that basic to see what works and then certain symptoms arise and then you re-medicate based on that symptom and it's really complex. And so in this particular case where basically the case comes

4:06down to why she's psychotic enough not to recognize the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murders. I mean, that is the essence of the case. And given the fact that Massachusetts law is incredibly biased in favor of the defendant when it comes to the insanity defense, I know a lot of people are very agitated on the right thing. There's a clear cut case, absolutely guilty, and a lot of people on the left saying it's a clear cut case, absolutely innocent. I kind of find myself weirdly in the middle and not all that surprise that the jury is hung on this year. I'm kind of surprised it was 111 in favor of a quiddle. I would have thought it would have been more like six six in favor of misprow. What was your take? Well, I think no, I think you hit it right there at the end, which is the fact that this was not an ambiguous jury deliberation. It appears to have been entirely lopsided in favor of letting this woman off the hook. On top of the public reaction to this, which I think has been rather psychotic as well, I think shows you that something more is going on beyond nuanced deliberations over the nature of the statute in Massachusetts. Your other excellent point is that psychology is this very muddled science or pseudoscience. Psychologists don't even

5:11know what psychology is anymore. Psychology is supposed to be the study of the soul. That's what the word means, recicke and ology. Now, I think probably most psychologists don't even believe in the soul or in the immaterial soul. On top of that, the way the medications work, even beyond psychology, just your other physical medications. If you look on the back of the bottle, a lot of times it will say, we do not really know how this works. We just know that it appears to work in trials. So, you know, good luck. Yes, it is a lot of mixing berries and witch doctors just looking at results. In this case, though, there was a lot of misinformation at the beginning. One, this idea that Lindsay Clancy had postpartum depression. Maybe she did. Maybe she didn't. She certainly wasn't diagnosed with it. We know that her youngest victim was eight months old. Again, postpartum depression is not usually the kind of thing you have eight months on. We know she methodically planned these murders. We know that a lot of the drugs in her system, period have been taken after the killings rather than before them.

6:12And then you get to the basic point that you're seeing in a lot of the popular commentary, which is, okay, well, look, if she was on a bunch of drugs, if she was a little loony, then she can't be held liable for that. And you just have to look at that on a social scale and say, okay, one in four women in the United States is on some kind of psychiatric medication. And when you get to the really stronger stuff, it's like one in five women. So are we really establishing the precedent here that 20% or 25% of women cannot be held accountable for even the most egregious crimes? I was a little more open-minded at the beginning of this case, but as the evidence came forward about the nature of her diagnoses and the help she was receiving from her family, on and on and on and on. I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me. And I'm glad to see at least one of these jurors held firm and did not merely take this side that we so often do in our culture, which is defending the perpetrator over the victims. Now, again, I think one of the things to mention here is that, I will admit that if I were on the jury, I may have voted for a quiddle because I think that

7:12the beyond a reasonable doubt provision of the law combined with the insanity defense in Massachusetts putting the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove sanity rather than the burden of proof on that offense to prove insanity makes it a very, very high bar for the prosecution to pass him, not sure they passed it in this case. With that said, obviously, I think that anybody who is one of the reasons why I think it's such a sin for people to conflate their own personal issues with Lindsey Clancy. I mean, the reality is that in the United States every year, you have probably 15 multiple homicides of children from women in circumstances kind of like Lindsey Clancy, but you have legitimately, as you say, tens of millions of women who are claiming they're suffering the same thing as Lindsey Clancy, which is totally insane and really, really damaging for the society at large. The defense, you know, was basically, they out there, they have three basic arguments that offense here in favor of the idea of the true psychotic at the point at which she committed the murders and, you know, you don't actually have to find these totally convincing in order to sustain reasonable doubt. To me, the most obvious one, the one that the prosecution, I think, had the hardest time with was the fact that she tried to kill herself. If she just killed

8:15the kids and then not tried to kill herself, then that would have been, I think I would have been like, friar immediately if she doesn't try to kill herself, the fact she tries to kill herself is a pretty good piece of evidence that she wasn't, quote unquote, in her right mind in sort of colloquial sense. Now, the prosecution started with the, she wasn't really trying to kill herself. She only tossed herself from the second story window. She cut herself that deep. I don't know, man, it seems kind of risky to me to jump from a 15 foot window or 14 foot window, whatever it was and cut yourself on the arms. If you're really just trying to like get away with the murder that way, it seems strange. So the, you know, that that one always seemed to cut that piece of evidence, just the evidence itself seems cut in favor of the defense. The voice, again, I think is always the most difficult part of this case because there's literally no way to actually determine what that happened or not. Yeah. Because it's purely subjective. She's going to say she heard a voice. Everybody's going to say there's no way you heard a voice. She's never reported that. So find that piece of evidence. Yeah. Right. Exactly. So I always thought that was the weakest part, but also the part that that her case rested on in large part. And then there is

9:15the, the basic idea that she was worried about the medication interactions. And again, I thought that was pretty weak for the defense that she, she thought that she was being, she didn't have evidence that she thought she was being poisoned. She worried that the medications were interacting poorly and weren't working for her, which is really, really common in psychiatric circles. But when you put all of that together and then the burden of proof is on the prosecution, again, I can see how people would arrive at reasonable that. I think that it'll be interesting to hear from the jurors afterward about how these deliberations actually went down. Is it as people, like maybe you or I think our friend Matt Walsh, suspect that immediately they went into the room 11 people, nine women and two of them and went, she's, she's acquitted. She's wonderful. She's a model for humans or were there actual legal deliberations along these fact patterns? I don't know the answer to that. What's your take? Yeah. Well, I think you can't really separate the juries deliberations from the social phenomenon. You, you like to hope that the jury is sequestered and is taking this in a graver and more sober way. I don't know that that's always the case. And the fact that none of us, I don't think any of us could have predicted the insane outpouring

10:16of support by the women who brought their children outside the court and the craziness on TikTok. None of us has a low enough opinion of women or even of liberal culture to have totally predicted that. I think that does tell you something about the moment in which we live in the way that people think about these issues. So I, I, I'd love to hear the interviews from the jurors after, after this case. I hope it is a mistrial. We'll see if the Massachusetts Supreme Court grants that emergency stay or whatever the defense is trying to do it as a Hail Mary at the end here. But it does seem to me that this reflects a broader trend in the culture, which is constantly making everything about the self. So everyone is just viewing, putting themselves in Lindsey Clancy's position is, is constantly airing on the side of perpetrators rather than of victims. And of misunderstanding even what insanity is. So to your point, then she tried to kill herself. Maybe, maybe she did. Again, there would be more effective ways for her to have killed herself. For instance, had she subjected herself to the same kind of torture that she put her kids under by hanging from a noose

11:18or something like that, that more surely would have done it. But the overall, the facts in the case make me wonder, even if she did try to kill herself, okay, does that mean that someone who is suicidal at the end of things can't be held guilty for a crime if a husband comes home after a night of drinking, shoots his three kids, kills his wife, and then flings himself out of window. Would we say, well, he's innocent by reason of insanity? Or would we say, yeah, the guy is clearly pretty messed up, but he is not so messed up as to meet the legal threshold of being without any liability for the crime? Yeah, for sure. And I think that that's why I say that it's a piece of evidence, but certainly not as positive as a piece of evidence and has to be taken in consideration with the whole psychiatric history. And all the rest of it, your point about the kind of broader societal ramifications, there's one thing here that to me is the most disturbing. And that is turning everything into a societal problem itself. So is it possible that let's say that you are an advocate for Lindsey Clancy, you truly believe she went through a psychotic episode? Why in the world's that implicate all of human society? Why are you protesting?

12:21Right? Like what are you protesting against? This was the thing that sort of bewildered me when I first saw these protesters outside the courtroom. Normally, when you have protesters outside of courtroom, they are arguing a fundamental miscarriage of justice is being done because society is corrupt in some way. So if there's a highly polarized racial trial, people show up outside the courtroom to suggest that America's racial past is impacting the verdict on this case. There was no implication that anything remotely like that was happening. It just seemed like a kind of cry against the world that somehow all society is responsible for Lindsey Clancy's psychotic, I mean, again, if you're in favor of her, you believe she's psychotic. So somehow society is responsible for her psychotic state. And that's so bewildering and bizarre to me. I don't see how you can simultaneously argue that Lindsey Clancy was psychotic and also the society caused. Yeah, exactly. If society caused, yeah, it's psychotic. It makes sense. I mean, yeah. Right. They're arguing on the one hand, this is totally beyond the realm of logic and sense, but also this is to be expected because of the structural issues. Well, those arguments are

13:22contrary to each other. My most sizzling heart take on the whole thing is that this is just OJ 2.0 for the same reasons. I have seen other people make the comparison, but the reasoning, I think, is important here. In the OJ case, she had a black jury let this black criminal off the hook, even though we all know that he killed his wife and her friend. And this came bizarrely at this moment when basically all of the racial problems had been fixed. So all of the structural racism, all the things that activists were talking about had been fixed according to the left wing black activists. They got the great society. They got affirmative action. They got a lower policing in certain places. They got on and on and on and on and on all of the issues. They got the racial ideology put into schools. They got all of it, but it didn't seem to fix all the problems. And so the black activists, the Al Sharpton types came out and said, you know what? You need to let us get away with murder. That was my read on OJ. And I think it's the same thing here. You there's that very famous study from Yale, the paradox of declining female happiness,

14:22which shows that as feminism advanced, women got less happy, both relative to men and in absolute terms. And so you've got women who have gotten all the things that the feminists said they wanted. They are now the majority of students in universities. They're now the majority of workers in the workforce. They've got all the rights and the abortion and the contraception and on and on and on and on and on and on. But there still seems to be this problem. And it seems to me that the feminist activists here are coming out and saying, you got to let us get away with murder. We we they're they're asking for the even in principle, the greatest possible license that you could have. That's the ideological dynamic that I see playing out here. And there are a lot of people who are under this way of liberal ideology. Yeah. Now, I mean, I totally agree that to me, the most controversial aspect of this trial was not the trial itself. The most controversial aspect of the trial is everything that was happening outside the trial. Yes. That was the stuff where I went around and said something is very unhealthy about the society. Because again, you know, the OJ case, everyone who is guilty. In this particular case, I am not sure if I'd been on the jury, how I would

15:22rule. So it's different just in the fact pattern. But when it comes to the actual people outside who are saying it's absolutely clear. Not only was she innocent, her lawyer is a hero on behalf of women everywhere. It's like, what are you doing? And of course, you do have to tie that into the broader left wing belief that that somehow abortion is a sacrament. I mean, that clearly this comes from the same sort of philosophy that suggests that the only important thing in life is the quote, unquote, woman's right to choose. And it kind of in very ugly fashion for some of these protesters underscore something that per life people have been saying for quite a while, which is, you know, we say there's no distinction between the pre-born and the post-born. So if you're making that argument about the pre-born, why aren't you making that argument about the post-born? And it seems to me that some of these women are in fact making this argument about the post-born. Yes. Twenty-seventh trimester abortion, as we might call it, and that people mocked us and they said that, you know, that was either dark humor or hysteria. But of course, if you can kill a baby three seconds before he's born, there's no reason that you couldn't kill him three seconds after he's born or three months or three years, which is exactly what you saw play out here. And by the way,

16:25that problem too has gotten worse because 20 years ago, you had Democrats saying abortion is bad, but we need to have it for some reason and it should be safe legal and rare as the Clinton said. But that's changed. And now you have governors all around the country who are signing new laws, including in Massachusetts, that says that you should have abortion up until the moment of birth. Well, it's inevitable. It is a consequence of accepting that logic that you would excuse women for killing their kids after birth as well. Well, that's Michael Moles. I know that Michael has to run because he's got a busy day ahead. Michael, appreciate the time. Rare occasion where you and I appreciate each other. So, once every 10 years, I'll say, kid, that's pretty good. Good to see you, sir. Exactly. All right, Michael, appreciate it. All right. First, we're going to get to everything involved here. We're going to break down the legal case. We're going to get to all the charges. We're going to get to, again, why I think that had I been on the jury, I'm not sure which way I would have ruled, honestly. First, here is a fairly remarkable statistic in a recent industry survey. Pure talk was the only wireless company to receive five stars in every single category coverage,

17:26support value and data, every category that raised an obvious question. What exactly are the rest of us paying all this money for? I mean, there are a lot of things in life that are just paying too much money. But the reality is that when it comes to wireless service, you should not be and Pure Talk can fix that for you. We somehow been trained to believe that wireless has to be both expensive and complicated. But Pure Talk says something different. They say good service, good value. No reason to keep paying more simply because you've always sort of done that thing right now. There's an especially good reason to switch for a few more weeks. Pure Talk is offering a limited data for just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. After that, get unlimited data for as low as 3499 a month. No contract. Go to puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Make the switch to my favorite wireless company. I've been using them for years. There's a better wireless choice out there at just 15 bucks a month for your first three months. Now, it's an excellent time to choose Pure Talk again. That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Go check them out right now and get the best deal available on your wireless service Pure Talk.com slash Shapiro. Okay. So as we announced right at the top, Judge William Sullivan announced that there was a mistrial in the case.

18:27Again, the defense were still waiting that they're trying to appeal it up to a higher level to see if they can avoid the mistrial and get the one outstanding juror to flip or at least be kicked out in favor of another juror who will then fully acquit. Here was the judge announcing. We law the jury did not ask to be sent back which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statutes in the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial. Well, I'd like to be heard. You run it. That's why I asked you before. But go ahead. Well, I just got to the first one and get to the other one. Hi. You run it. I would suggest to the court that as we are pretty much all familiar with under Karen Reed versus the climate wealth, the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice Judges back in February of 25 held that under rule 27B of their Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure, quote, gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to

19:28get the trial. No, again, we're going to go through the charges because I think that they're the hot takes and we can try to speculate that people immediately jumped to the defense of Lindsey Clancy here and that they were doing so for feminist reasons. But I'm just going to go through what we know and what we don't know. And again, one of the problems here is that Massachusetts law is extraordinarily burdensome for the prosecution. Very, very burdensome for the prosecution. So I'm going to go through the mandatory jury instructions in Massachusetts. So here is what judges tell the jurors to consider. Quote, the burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt is from as often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your mind an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of

20:29certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs. They solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. Now, the key sort of terms there abiding convictions. This means you have to have a lasting settled belief in the truth of the charges. You have to have moral certainty, not just a moral feeling like certainty. Probability is not enough. Proponents of the evidence is it's also not a imaginary. It's not like aliens could have come down and killed their kids. Or maybe it was her husband. You actually have to have a reasonable doubt, a reasonable doubt. So here was the judge. He was called back yesterday to try and force them into a verdict by reading the reasonable doubt rules again. Here's what he had to say. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood that what's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible though. For everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. The charges prove beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and

21:33considered all of the evidence, you have in your mind an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. I told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Okay, so again, it's not clear in convincing evidence or proponents of the evidence. It's not total certainty. So what actually happened in the lead up to all of this is that the Clancy defense attorney, the judge had said that it was basically 11 to 1 in favor of a quiddle and Clancy's defense attorney asked for the holdout juror to be removed supposedly for not considering what reasonable doubt actually means. Here's what that sounded like this morning. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial

22:34because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the courts rolling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror. Okay, well then the judge was like, what do you want me to do here? The judge was not particularly happy with the defense attorney in large swaths of this case. Typically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. Did they yesterday, didn't they? Yes. You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully and I'm asking maybe what it was. What do you want me to do? Get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this

23:39juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested. But it just in case the records go, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue. Okay. So anyway, bottom line is likely Miss trial 11 to 1 barring some sort of last minute appeal. So I'm going to go through the elements of the case. And because again, I do not think this case is super duper easy. I don't know. Actually, I know that a lot of people who want to jump to it's super easy. I just don't worry on the jury. I would be extremely conflicted, extremely conflicted. Obviously, I'd want to convict her based on the egregious and extreme and vile crimes that she committed against her own children. The insanity defense and the standards for that in Massachusetts are particularly strong in favor of the defense. So the counts of murder, three counts of murder, the prosecution under the law in Massachusetts must establish the core elements for each child, unlawful killing,

24:41the clancy killed the kids. Okay. Undisputed. Males are forethought that she acted with legal males intent to cause death intent to cause grievous bodily harm and intent to commit an act that a reasonable person would know creates a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. So it's the it's the males of forethought, the intent element here that is the one that is under consideration. Because when it comes to intent, now you have to determine whether the person is in their right mind. Right. The physical act is not in dispute. The interference with the person's breathing, not in dispute. The intent is in dispute. The intent is in dispute. Okay. So the defense presented the insanity defense. Now the insanity defense in Massachusetts is different than it is in most other jurisdictions in the United States. The insanity defense in Massachusetts suggests that it is the job of the prosecution to prove sanity, not the job of these defense to prove insanity. So the Commonwealth versus McCool standard from 1967

25:45says that a defendant is not criminally responsible if at the time of the offense and at the result of mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. Have the cognitive ability to meaningfully understand their action was wrong or illegal. And the volitional ability to control their behavior, even if they knew it was wrong. Right. So they have to lack capacity to control their behavior and also to appreciate the wrong fulness of the conduct. Now this doesn't count for voluntary use of drugs. It doesn't count for DUI. It doesn't count for anti social conduct. And Massachusetts law distinguishes to know from to appreciate. Right. So it's not that you know that your action is wrong. You have to appreciate that your action is wrong. So what does that mean? You have to have a meaningful understanding of the legal or moral significance of the conduct. So for example, let's say that somebody is psychotic and they believe that God has commanded you to kill your kids because they are possessed by demons and demons and killing them saves them. So in that case, the person might know that

26:45murder is wrong, but they might believe that psychosis because of the psychosis that God's commands supersedes that morality. So you might not appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. That would be the example. Okay. And just a second we'll get into how the prosecution and offense cases fit into all of this and will be joined by Lyndon Blake. First, you know, when it comes to our health, obviously, you know, there are a lot of health products out there. Most of them on the back of the bottle, there's a bunch of stuff that you don't understand that's not true for balance of nature. Balance of nature has been keeping people healthy since 1997. They've served more than three million customers and hundreds of thousands of customers take the whole health system every single day. Well, I mean, with health products trying something once is easy sticking with something, that's the hard part. The reason I think people stick with balance of nature for that long, pretty straightforward. They've made the routine to stay healthy, pretty simple. The whole health system brings together 47 ingredients of real whole fruits, veggies, spices and fibers. The routine is three fruits, capsules, three veggies, capsules, two scoops of fiber and spice. That's it. No elaborate morning ceremony, no 20 bottles lined up across your kitchen counter. It fits into real life. If you've been hearing about balance of nature from me for a while, I'm thinking, maybe

27:48I'll try that at some point. This is your invitation to finally see what it is about every order when you use my coach, Shapiro comes, they free guiltless snack. Trust me. Everybody loves the guiltless snacks. They are great. Again, look, I have it right here. I have it right here beside me, keeping me healthy. We cherish our balance of nature. Go to balanceofnature.com. Today, subscribe to the whole health system or any other subscription, get an additional 10% off with promo code Shapiro and use code Shapiro. They'll send you that free guiltless snack with your order balance of nature.com code Shapiro. We appreciate all of our advertisers and allows us to bring you the content that you want. And one of those advertisers that we appreciate is golden crust because, as we talk about a lot on the show, our government is physically irresponsible. And that means eventually pretty much everything is going to inflate. Well, it turns out the thing that has never been worth zero is gold. Central banks around the world bought a record 289 tons of gold last year, last quarter rather. That's up 62% from a year ago. Meanwhile, JP Morgan is forecasting gold at six grand in ounce by Q4. City bank has put a $90 target on silver. I'm not making those predictions. They are again, diversification, just a smart strategy. Physical gold is remarkably

28:51simple. Washington can run more trillion dollar deficits and the Fed can expand the money supply. You can't just print gold. If you've been thinking about owning physical gold or silver, check out golden crest. They've made the buying process really straightforward transparent pricing, widely recognized liquid coins, zero buyback fees, when you want to sell them when you call, you're talking to a real human, not some enormous call center. For retirement accounts, metals can be stored at Delaware depository. Golden crest offers free insured shipping and free IRA storage on qualifying purchases right now at a free 2026 infokit or a free portfolio review plus up to 25 grand and free silver on qualifying purchases called 888 429 3999 tax benda metals that 638 257 or go to golden crest metals.com slash Ben. We're joined online. I linen Blake she's a daily wear report and host of that. So criminal linen, thanks so much for the time. So linen, obviously, we are awaiting sort of the final mistrial ruling. What do you make of the of the mist trial? Yeah, I think this is where we've been heading since we broke for the last weekend. I don't think there's any way that this jury said off their phones. They were not sequestered. I think they were all in the weeds, even though they have said over and over again, under oath that

29:56they were impartial. They were unbiased in this. But this case has really turned into a disaster. And even Kevin Reddington earlier this morning told Brian Intener reporter in the courtroom that he would not do any emergency order to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts because it would be a waste of time. Well, when the rubber met the road and Judge Sullivan said mist trial, he filed that emergency order. And now I think it is going to be a waste of time. I think nothing is going to stop this from being a mist trial. And then we start getting to the weeds of who does this new trial kind of favor prosecution or the defense, will there be a plea deal? I don't think so. I think the prosecution will retry this and try to put Lindsey Clancy behind bars for the rest of her life. I mean, it'll be very interesting to see how the prosecution attempts to do that because again, when it goes 11-1 against you, that's a pretty good indicator that your case is very difficult. I mean, I've been discussing the standards of Massachusetts law here on the program. And the reality is that Massachusetts law is very much biased in favor of the defendant,

30:58particularly when it comes to the insanity defense because the prosecution has the burden of proving that she was saying the defense does not have the burden of proving that she was insane at the time of the killings. That's a very high standard to prove particularly when, again, as we've been discussing, she not only killed her three children, she then did superficial cuts to her arms, her neck, and tossed herself from a second story window and ended up permanently paralyzed. So, you know, I think that when most people see that, even just on a colloquial level, you think that person seems crazy to me. I mean, that seems like not the behavior of a not crazy person. And so when you start trying to fit that into what was she doing, does it fit within psychosis? Now, that's a burden that's very hard for the prosecution to overcome. What do you think the prosecution will take away from the first trial? What lessons do you think they will have learned that they think will allow them to do better in a second trial here? It may need to get more witnesses. I know other witnesses work her teeth throughout the trial. And especially how the prosecution handled their questioning of the witnesses. I think it was very hard to follow. I don't think they made a lot of direct points until the closing arguments,

31:59which again, you think the jury, that's one of the last things they heard, but they've been sitting there for a month going over 300 exhibits listening to more than 80 people give their testimony. And I just don't think the prosecution held control in the courtroom throughout the testimony portion. I think Kevin Ruddington controlled the courtroom. I think he came on very strong. I think he's the one that kind of ended on a low note, didn't end on his best closing argument that I'm sure he would have hoped for. But I think this mistrial is a huge win for the Clancy defense for the Clancy camp. I mean, this you would think until yesterday, which they all but told us it was 11 to 1, the 11 being not guilty about recent of insanity, you would think it would be more split than that. And a lot of experts thought it would be more split than that. But when you're sitting in there and listening and you talk about the burden of proof being on the prosecution. And this is beyond a reasonable doubt. They in a lot of experts eyes did not

33:01meet their burden of proof. Yes, they said she sent her husband out. That was weird that she planned to do that. But there's no blood test or so test to see at that moment where you in your right mind. And so it's just been so wishy washy this entire time. And like you and I have said from the beginning, it is very, very hard to kind of get into the mindset and make yourself see one way or another because it is someone's state of mind. I thought at the beginning, not guilty about reason of insanity. Closer we got. I was like, okay, the prosecution's maybe making some leeway. And then after they broke for last weekend, this entire week has been one, we've seen it. The jury has been like, we can't make a decision and judge Sullivan has sent them back twice. And now they're dead end there. So that's why we're here at Miss trial. Yeah, Lynn, I've tried to be ruthlessly honest with myself on how I would have ruled that I've been on the jury. And again, given the legal standards, I do not believe that the prosecution met the burden of proof. I just don't. I think that the prosecution had a very difficult time proving beyond reasonable, beyond a reasonable

34:05doubt that she did not have any sort of psychotic episode sufficient to kill her kids. And especially given the fact that kind of the fact pattern that they were trying to establish, which is that there was planning that went into the murders. Obviously there was. I mean, clearly there was planning that went into the murders. But I mean, knowing people who have psychiatric problems, I can just tell you that these things are not mutually exclusive. I mean, people who are psychotic do actually have very often the capacity to plan to do pretty terrible things that don't lie within the realm of the moral. And so this is, to me, so much of this comes down to we are not good at psychiatry. Psychiatry is a really rudimentary field of medicine. When you have doctors who are sitting there testifying as to shed bipolar one, no, she had bipolar two. It was postpartum depression, maybe it wasn't postpartum depression. Maybe it was just psychosis. Maybe it was a, maybe it was a manic episode as part of an undiagnosed bipolar condition. Like we are now just using a bunch of labels that are variously applied by different psychologist and psychiatrist to describe the events. And I think that in the end, if you're sitting in the jury room and the question that you're being

35:08asked is was it was this a planned murder of her three children without with full understanding of the moral culpability of what she was doing? Beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing was wrong. Again, it's hard for me to get there, even as, and this is why, yeah, I think a lot of the hot takes, which are like, oh, she was 100% guilty. And anybody who thinks otherwise, I mean, again, I can see why people would want to rule that she was guilty. I could see that. I could be convinced possibly. But the immediate jump to everyone who thinks that this is a hard trial must be on the side of the feminists, loonies who are outside protesting in Lindsey Clancy's favor. I just don't think it breaks down quite that simply in the actual courtroom. I agree 100%. I mean, there is a big difference of these people that I guess have no jobs going out there and their pink t-shirts just having a pep rally for Lindsey Clancy and then people being like, wow, this is a tragic event. Listen to the feminist icon as they call Kevin Reddington. He's like, there is no winners here. There's no winners in this child. This is a travesty. So the people

36:13celebrating Lindsey treating her like someone they want to be like, I would never want to be like Lindsey Clancy. This is horrible. She did the worst possible thing imaginable. Now she's in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She's going to be locked up potentially somewhere for the foreseeable feature, whether that is a mental institution or a jail sale. I think there is a spectrum of this and people that are just so far on each side are not looking at the facts of the courtroom. And I think a good point to pointing out that she know right from wrong, yes, we know that when she was in the hospital that she asked for a lawyer, well, at that point, she knew what she did was wrong. But again, we're not talking about then we are talking about that hour and a half on January 24th, 2023, when this took place. And I thought the defense is best argument. So they really didn't bring it up during closing arguments was her heart rate at 57 beats per minute during that entire thing. Who, who in the world, unless you are psychotic, can kill your three children,

37:20shrangle them with force and your heart rate is the same beat if you were in a lazy river. Well, that's Lyndon Blake can go check out her show that's so criminal and all of her reporting over at Taylor. I Lyndon appreciate the time. Of course, Ben. So I want to get into what the prosecution was arguing. So the prosecution was basically arguing the clancy was in fact oppressed, but she was not psychotic that she knew what she was doing that she understood that it was wrong the whole time and that she deliberately executed a plan to kill her kids and herself. Now again, that last part that she had a plan to kill her kids and herself, but she was not psychotic to the extent required by law. That is a hard, that's a hard job because, for example, if you say, if I kill the children, I can kill myself, then which is what the prosecution was saying she wanted to commit suicide, but she felt she couldn't do it until after she killed the kids. So she knew it was wrong and she did it, right? That would be she knew she was wrong and she did it. But if you said a psychotic delusion made me believe that killing my kids was necessary or morally right,

38:22then theoretically that is psychotic. Again, these are very fine distinctions in a very rough trial. Here was the prosecutions forensic psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Sadhoff saying that she did this in methodical fashion. Did the defendant tell you that the voice told her where to kill the children? No. Did the voice tell her how to kill the children? No. Did the voice tell her what to use to kill the children? No. Did the voice tell her in what order to kill the children? No. Did the voice tell her where to try to kill herself? No. Did the voice tell her in what way to kill herself? No. The fact that the voice, according to the defendant, the voice didn't tell her any of those things, but instead just said, kill the kids so you can kill yourself. Is that significant in your evaluation in any way? Yes. How so? Well, in the small amount of time that

39:27Miss Clancy had in the home without her husband, it was important in order to carry this out, as well as her suicide, to do this quickly, methodically, and the like. Again, that's the case for the prosecution now. If the jury believed the Clancy was experiencing genuine psychosis, whether it was caused by any of the aforementioned conditions, by polar one, severe depression, postpartum illness, or anything else, drug interactions, and that she did not actually have the capacity to require it on her Massachusetts law, she gets acquitted. Again, this is why I say the burden of proof under Massachusetts law is very high if this has been tried in another state. And the defense had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the other way that she was insane is quite possible that this verdict goes the other way. I mean, she again does not need formally a bipolar one diagnosis or even a postpartum psychotic diagnosis. The question is whether she was psychotic to the extent required by law at the time. And again, as I've said, there are basically three major arguments that offense can make. One is

40:28she tried to kill herself. So the fact that she tried to kill herself shows presumably that she was not operating at least presumptively within the rational framework. Two is that she heard a voice. Now, they're counting on the voice because if she was having a manic episode, that's very a clear evidence. Now, the problem with that is that she's making a claim that is utterly unfalcifiable. You have no clue whether she heard the voice. The only person who's ever said she heard the voice is Lindsey Clancy. Pretty much everybody who talked with her before and after said that it there was there was no prior voice. She's never had a voice since. That during inconsistencies in her account. And the third point that was being made by the by the defense is that she was worried about her medication interactions. And this is all part of a developing psychotic state. But you know, you can worry about your medication interactions and it not be psychotic. But again, this is where the burden of proof matters. The burden of proof in law is super duper important. If the burden of proof is on that offense, they're the ones who have to pick up the weight. Here, the burden of proof was on

41:29the prosecution. Now, again, there have been some takes that are kind of the other way from what I'm saying Miranda divine over the New York Post said mental illness is not a defense for murder. To be found not guilty, Lindsey Clancy had to be in the grips of psychosis at the time she strangled her three children to the extent she did not know what she was doing was wrong. There's been little compelling evidence for her other than her inconsistent claims she heard a voice commanding her for the only 18 minutes it took to kill Kora Dawson and Kallen. The evidence is that she meticulously planned and carried out three purposeful killings taking the children one by one to the basement where she lay them facedown overpowered their struggles wrapped in exercise bed around each little one that can pull tight until their bodies were lifeless and the blood vessels had popped in their eyes. She then went upstairs and attempted suicide, leaving the gruesome scene for her husband to find when he returned from the errands she had sent him on. Despite seeing multiple shrinks and going to the hospital three times, she had never been diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, just depression and bipolar disorder, a diagnosis that she and her husband apparently rejected. And again, not uncommon, this is what I've been saying. I'm just going to keep beating the strong. Psychiatry is an inexact science. It is highly inexact. You can have a series of symptoms

42:31and depending on how you personally describe those symptoms to the doctor, they'll give you a different diagnosis and if you go to two doctors with the same symptoms, they may give you two separate diagnoses. And Miranda Divine concludes, she says, the psychiatric experts who give conflicting evidence about whether she was in postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. But even if she was, psychosis not automatically qualify her for legal insanity and absolve her of criminal responsibility. All murderers are mentally ill to some degree. And again, that is the case for the prosecution. I'm not sure they overcame the burden of prove. Matt Walsh is a similar take. So he says that the sole juror is heroic because he believes that it's a clear cut case. And Matt says, clansy's entire insanity defense rests completely on the claims she heard of voice telling her to kill her kids. The problem is one, there's no way to prove or disprove in a imaginary voice. Any murderer can make this claim. If it counts as reasonable doubt, we can never convict anything, anyone of anything ever again. Now again, it isn't really just that she said there was an imaginary voice or whatever. And he's right. Utterly disprovable. However, when you

43:33combine that with her entire psychiatric history, it looks more plausible, right? That's sort of the question. Two, says Matt, she never reported this voice before or since the crime strongly indicating that you made it up. Again, that is the best case for the prosecution. Matt is right about that. And three, most importantly, even if she did hear a voice, why didn't she refuse to follow the command? If a voice told me to murder my children, I would refuse. If the voice threatened and harassed me, I'd still refuse. Okay. Now, this is the part where I think Matt is is not correct. I mean, again, if you are psychotic, then your capacity to refuse things is very, very much down, like very, very much down. There are a lot of conditions, lots of them where people do things that are not within rationality and they do not seem to have the capacity to stop themselves from doing it. Right? Anorexia is an example. You, you might know intellectually that you are not in fact fat, but you cannot stop yourself from starving yourself. That's an actual psychological condition. It is not just a matter of willpower. Now, you might be able to curb that, but that is a reality. Right? So again, I find this, this case extremely shaded. Again, this is maybe the most

44:39unpopular opinion, and sometimes reality is complicated. And under the law, the prosecution had a rough case to prosecute here, a very difficult case to prosecute. Now, if it had come down the other way and should have been found guilty, I would be probably defending the guilty verdict as, you know, reasonable of the jurors to come to, because I myself am divided on the question. The one thing that, as Michael and I discussed up top that is certainly true is the people who are going crazy in favor of the Lindsey Clancy is some sort of, of heroes, women everywhere, or all women are suffering the issues of Lindsey Clancy. That's not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. When you say that all women are suffering the kinds of stuff that Lindsey Clancy is suffering, and then you're making excuses, what you are saying is not Lindsey Clancy had psychosis and killed her kids. You're saying she was reasonable and killed her kids, and she should be acquitted for that. And if she was reasonable, just like every other woman and killed her kids and she should be acquitted for that. Now you're making a case that proves that basically any woman should be able to kill her kids at any time. And that's, that's a problem. That is a real problem.

45:42Again, some of the social media response here is, is pretty insane. Here are some of the women outside the courthouse making the hearthands outside the Clancy Courthouse. Again, as there's one tick tocker, apparently a saying tick tocker, one of the few, re-choi, who points out that basically women are arguing against their own sanity at this point.

46:50And Guy the Week of Sex. Ew, no, that's so sexist, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying because of our hormones. Yes, because your hormones should become incapacitated and capable of making rational decisions, and your emotions become to control you like a child. And women should not be held accountable and doing such fits. That's just precisely what I'm saying. It will stop saying what I was going to say like it was your point. I'm just saying that this woman should be in prison, she should be put in a mental asylum. Yes, because women are not criminals, they're hormones, dictate their very lives, they are slaves to their emotions, and so they cannot choose, they are forced to do whatever they feel, because they are children incapable of controlling their emotions. We agree. That I just ff feminists. Again, this is like that, that woke, it's like that woke and racist, gripping hands. It is true, the radical feminists and you know, utter sexists making kind of the same exact point. Okay, so obviously we will keep tabs on the follow up as it develops. We are still at this point awaiting the final mistrial announcements from the court, but it is

47:55essentially a foregone conclusion that that will happen. And so, you know, we will continue to bring you updates. I'm sure all through the weekend, we have reached the end of the show. We'll be back here Monday with more. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Vent Shapiro Show. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First, you know, 20 years ago, man, a lot has happened in my life. I was 22 years old. I was not yet married. Now, just think back over the past 20 years, wife, five kids, big business, all of it. Well, 20 years of long time, simply safe is now celebrating 20 years. Again, most companies don't make it that long and less they're actually solving a real problem. When you're picking a security system for your home, what you're looking for is peace of mind. The goal is not to obsess over your security, the goal is to never have to think about it again. And that's what I like about simply safe. Most home security systems are designed for after something goes wrong. After the window breaks, after someone gets inside, after your phone buzzes, simply safe approach is different. It's designed to help stop a break in before it happens. They're AI powered outdoor cameras to detect suspicious activity around your home. Alert live, US-based agents. Those agents can actually speak through the camera to scare off trespassers and if necessary, request 911 dispatch.

49:00Prevention beats reaction. Simply safe has been protecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate their anniversary with us and save 60% on your new SimplySafe system at simplysafe.com slash Shapiro. That's 60% off at simplysafe.com slash Shapiro Plus when you order, write in our show name in the how did you hear about a survey to let them know we say there is no safe like SimplySafe.