Episode 245
Lindsay Clancy was a middle-aged suburban mother who murdered her 3 children then attempted suicide in January of 2023. Her 2026 trial was noteworthy not just because of the holdout juror whose guilty vote resulted in a mistrial, but also the online feminist response that excused the crime and blamed the husband. Thousands of women recorded themselves and their children in Tiktok videos with the caption “Same, Lindsay.” In this episode of the Removing Barriers podcast we discuss the murder and the defense’s claim that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis and should not be criminally responsible for the murders. We also try to understand the psychotic online response from an alarming number of women, as well as the media’s horrid treatment of the holdout juror simply because he didn’t reach the verdict they all wanted. How did we get here, and how can we turn back from it? Join us as we discuss all this and more.
Listen to the Removing Barriers Podcast here:
Affiliates:
Notes:
Transcription
Note: This is an automated transcription. It is not perfect but for most part adequate.
Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. And we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
This is episode 245 of the Removing Barriers podcast. And in this episode, we will be sharing our thoughts on the non-viral trial of Lindsay Clancy and the fallout from the Hung jury.
[Jay]
Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removingbarriers.net/donate. Removing barriers: A clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
Alright Jay, let’s start with an overview of this viral trial, what happened and who is Lindsay Clancy and stuff like that before we get into the meat of the matter.
[Jay]
Just by way of reminder and review, Lindsay Clancy is a middle-aged American woman who killed her three children on January 24th, 2023. Cora, Dawson and Callan. ages 5-3 and age months, respectively, were strangled by their mother one by one and found by their father Patrick Clancy after the mother had slit her wrists and jumped out the second story window of their Duxbury, Massachusetts home. She paralyzed herself from the waist down and she would later say that she heard a man’s voice in her head commanding her to kill the children and that she couldn’t resist. Her lawyers would later argue that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the murders and was therefore not criminally responsible for the three counts of murder that she was prosecuted for. The trial was of intense national interest because of the discussion of women’s perinatal and postpartum mental health and the intersection between crime and mental health and what that means for society. Lindsay Clancy was supported overwhelmingly by women online with thousands of posts claiming that Patrick Clancy was the actual killer and that he was framing Lindsay. And of course thousands of other posts showing women holding their infant children with the caption, same Lindsay, as if to say, I understand why you killed your kids because I feel that way sometimes too. And we see you, you’re not going through this postpartum thing alone. The 12-person jury could not come to a unanimous verdict, and they returned with an 11 not guilty and one guilty verdict, resulting in a hung jury mistrial. The holdout juror and hero, in my opinion, Michael Dismonville, was subject to intense backlash and criticism and threats and doxxing, smear campaigns, not just from online personnel, but from the media and from the jurors that he served with as well. And so As of now, Lindsay Clancy is still presumed innocent. The prosecution can either, you know, pursue the trial again on the same or lesser charges, or they can decide that they’re not going to pursue any further charges. And we await to see what their decision is.
[MCG]
Yeah, one correction there, the jury was hung not on not guilty, but not guilty by means of insanity, which is insanity, which is different from simply not guilty.
[Jay]
Right, the argument wasn’t whether or not she killed her children, was whether or not she was aware of what was right and wrong as she was killing them.
[MCG]
So let’s talk about the split jury because of course we know 11 to 1, one Haitian-American man held out, I assume that he thinks she was guilty and Of course, we had 11 jurors that were willing to go back with the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Why do you think the jury was split?
[Jay]
The jury was originally split 9 to 3, 9 not guilty, 3 guilty. And yeah, I believe it was 9 guilty.
[MCG]
What I heard was 8 was not guilty by the reasonable solemnity, two was undecided, and two was guilty.
[Jay]
And somehow the women on the, and I say women because let’s just be real here, I think they were successful in bullying the other three into a guilty verdict. You know, I really think that if their behavior after the trial is any indication They absolutely bullied and henpecked the other dissenters into agreement. Only one decided that he was not going to give in and that he would come in with a guilty verdict. When you listen to the post-trial interviews that many of the jurors have given, there seemed to have been an activism element or angle to their decision making. It seemed perhaps that it didn’t matter. What they heard in that courtroom, they were going to find her not guilty because they wanted to champion the cause of women’s health, postpartum care. And it’s the sort of club where women support women and it doesn’t matter what you do, they’re going to find you not guilty. They’re going to make excuses for what you’ve done. Perhaps I’m taking a bit of liberty to describe it in that fashion. But I think the jury was split. primarily because of the activism there. I think that a majority of them were for activist reasons. The ones that initially came in with a guilty verdict were perhaps the ones that wanted to evaluate all of the evidence and come at it as fair as possible. But ultimately, they were convinced, all except one were convinced to vote not guilty.
[MCG]
Yeah, I’m going to go a little bit of a different direction. Of course, again, they were going for not guilty by reason of insanity. I just want to emphasize that because I don’t want to mislead in saying that they were going for not guilty. So again, I’m no lawyer, as I often say on this podcast, but to some degree, this child was an unusual one. And it wasn’t unusual necessarily that their insanity defense was made. I guess for most part, at least from my knowledge, insanity defense seemed to be a little bit rare, but not necessarily unusual. I think that when we come to trials and stuff like that, even the justice system in the US, you know, there are two things that has to be proven, you know, maybe any first year law student will tell you. And when it comes to these things, two things have to be proven. You have to prove what they call the actus reus, which is basically a guilty action. To some degree, You go to court, a criminal trial happening, something similar to this. The prosecution has to prove that the action was happening, you did it, and you were of a sound mind, which is the second one, which is menswear, which is basically a guilty mind. I guess the unusualness of this trial is that the actual rear wasn’t necessarily need to be proven because she’s claiming affirmative defense, which is like self-defense is affirmative defense. Insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning you’re saying, I did it, but I’m justified because of, and in the case of self-defense, you said because it was self-defense, I was in fear of my life. Or in her case, she’s saying, I did it, but I didn’t have the mens rea. I didn’t have a guilty mind because of postpartum psychosis. So in my mind, the persecution has to prove that she was not basically insane. They didn’t have to necessarily prove that she did it. Unfortunately, in Massachusetts, it seems like that even with affirmative defense, the prosecution still has to present enough evidence of a guilty action that you actually did it, even though you’re claiming you did it in the affirmative defense, which is, I would imagine, a little bit different from other states. So her lawyer claim in court that she killed her kids. She’s saying, I did it because I was insane. I’m not 100% sure that the persecution proved that she wasn’t insane, to be honest. That she was or was not? That she was not insane during that time. Now, I’m not defending Lindsay. I’m just saying that I’m not sure the persecution proved beyond a shadow of doubt that she was not insane. The question for me is that whether or not she was insane or not, does that remove the responsibility of what she did. I think there are enough evidence to show that there was something definitely going on. I think the evidence to show that she has forethought and knowledge and plan and execute, which quote and unquote crazy people don’t normally do. They normally, in my opinion, impulsive. I’m going to play something from the lawyer because it seems like he went on a little bit of a reversal, but with the explanation why I think he did it. So here he’s a lawyer. I don’t even remember his name, but he was her lawyer. This is a woman that — No, this is drawing the trial. This is what he said. Did not get the medication, did not get the medical treatment that she so deserved. This is a woman that was suffering from psychosis at the time that she went down to that basement. No, so basically, and there are other clips out there that she basically said that she did it. She did it. This is what he’s saying now when he tried to get the judge to declare her not guilty.
[Lindsay’s Lawyer]
Where’s the evidence that she did this?
[MCG]
Where is the evidence that she did this? I think that caused a little bit of hoopla on the internet, but he’s just playing to Massachusetts laws, basically. He’s not saying that there’s no evidence that she did it or that she didn’t do it. He’s just saying that the prosecution didn’t present enough evidence to prove that, quote unquote, the access reus, that she did it, even though he said during the trial that she did it, but the men’s wear wasn’t there. So why was the jury split? I think it’s because that when you’re splitting stuff like that in terms of access reus and men’s wear and stuff like that, I think it’s usually difficult to prove. You know, it’s basically come down to experts on who you believe. Of course, based upon some of the jurors and what they’ve said, you can conclude that, well, I know if there are a lot of them, but some of them are on the liberal side and probably come down on that side. The holdout juror even said that some of them were using cell phones. June deliberation, which surprised me because I would imagine that they would have taken your phone and all this stuff. I’m going to go off a little bit here, and I know a lot of jurisdictions don’t want to do this because it’s expensive and it is inconvenient for the jurors. But I do believe when it comes to high profile cases that these people need to be sequestered. They need to be removed from technology and they need to be say, hey, divorce yourself from society for a little bit and make decision based upon the laws. Because who knows? I think somewhat the same thing was Derek Chauvin. There was so much hoopla about this case that the jurors saying, hey, if I found this man not guilty, I’m not going to be able to believe in my society again. And look what they did to the whole juror. So I don’t know. I think the facts of the case were very, very difficult in some sense. And if you don’t have a biblical compass that guide your morality, I can see why they would come to a place where they’re hung and saying, hey, I think she was crazy. She’s not responsible and stuff like that. All right, so I have several clips I want to play of lawyers and other folks and just kind of give their take on the entire trial. on why they think the jury was split and all that stuff. The first one is Megan Kelly. She was on the Piers Morgan show, I think maybe a week or two now or whatever it is from this recording. But this is what Megan Kelly had to say about Lindsay Clancy and the entire trial.
[Piers Morgan & Megyn Kelly]
The Lindsay Clancy story, I think it’s very, it’s a complex story. I don’t think it’s a simple thing. My own personal view And I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, just my assessment of this story is that she obviously brutally killed her children. That is indisputable. The only question is whether she knew what she was doing when she did it, whether she’s a cold blooded murderer. I’ve interviewed a lot of murderers. I’ve done literally series of interviewing serial killers and psychopaths and killers. So I’ve interviewed a lot of people that deliberately set out to kill people, and I sort of took a view with her it looked to me like she had in some way just lost her mind. Then committed an atrocious, heinous act. But the flaw in the whole thing was they charged her with the wrong thing. If they’d actually done what we would in England call something like manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, she could still end up spending the last part of her life behind, in an institution somewhere, she wouldn’t be free to commit more crimes. But we wouldn’t be convicting a woman who was incredibly disturbed with a premeditated, cold-blooded murder. So that’s where I come from on it.
[MCG]
I think that he doesn’t have the US system down as he thinks, because that’s basically what they were trying to convict her on. not guilty by the reason of insanity would do exactly what he’s saying.
[Piers Morgan & Megyn Kelly
You don’t share that view.
Correct. I understand that and a lot of people feel as you do, so I don’t diminish your POV, but I don’t agree with it. I think you need to understand first and foremost that medical insanity is not the same as legal insanity. The bar for legal insanity in the United States is extremely high. It is Jeffrey Dahmer, who cannibalized people, who was zombifying live human beings to try to make them his forever friends with shots to the brain, was not allowed the not guilty by reason of insanity defense. They did not buy it. He was found guilty of murder. Jeffrey Dahmer was not considered insane legally.
[MCG]
No, that’s a strong point I must give Megan, because if Jeffrey Dahmer wasn’t insane, there’s no way Lindsay Clem Z was insane. As she said, legally, mentally, of course, we know that there’s definitely something going on. But legally, whether they’re responsible or not, if Jeffrey Dahmer is not responsible, then Jeffrey Dahmer is responsible, then Lindsay Clancy should be responsible.
[Piers Morgan & Megyn Kelly]
But of course he was insane as a medical proposition or as we understand colloquially that term. And so I think if you start there, you understand why people like me do not accept this defense for Lindsay Clancy. She obviously had serious medical issues, mental issues. She obviously wasn’t herself, but we don’t generally accept that as an excuse for murder. Nick Reiner is about to pull the same card out for murdering Rob Reiner and his wife, Nick’s parents. It’s not going to work for him either. A woman in Times Square just took out a knife, stabbed a 32-year-old new mother who had just gone back to work at Bank of America after nursing her newborn baby for a few months at home. That poor 32-year-old mom is dead as a result of this other woman who took out a knife and stabbed her out of the blue in the middle of Times Square where your viewers have probably gone and watched a show if they came to Broadway. And why’d she do it? Oh, her brother says she suffered psychosis related to postpartum that she had 20 years earlier. No, I don’t accept any of that. Obviously, the woman was a nutcase. Most people who commit random violence on strangers are. That doesn’t mean they’re legally insane. Legally, we look to whether they knew the difference between right and wrong. And the evidence of that we typically look to is for example, ordered thinking. And Lindsay Clancy absolutely had ordered thinking on the day she murdered her children. She sent the husband out to a restaurant that was farther away than the normal one. She Googled the route to make sure to see how long it would take when he called her at the point in time in which we believe she was in between murders. She took the call for 14 seconds, redirected him, said it’s fine if you get the generic medication. This is not a woman in the middle of a psychotic break. And if you speak to most medical professionals who have seen those, they’ll back me up on that. She was lying to keep him out of the home so she could commit the behaviors. She’s not frothing at the mouth. She’s methodical.
[MCG]
As for some clarity on that, her husband worked from home. So they’re home basically together all day. So that’s why she could plan for him to go out and get dinner, whatever the case may be, so that she could be home alone with the kids. So that’s where that came in. Also, I think that Megan Kelly has a strong point in terms of audit thinking and stuff like that. But I’ve also seen that, of course, not a professional, but I’ve also seen that some people that they might be in some kind of mental state where they’re unstable and you could say something to them that kind of snapped them out of it for a little bit and they can go right back into it. Could that be the case with a phone call from her husband? I don’t know. But it’s a sticky situation because a lot of folks, even Christians today, they lean so heavily on experts in terms of, you know, doctors and stuff like that. And when it comes to these things, they don’t lean as much on the word of God as they should. So a lot of Christians look and say, if the doctor says she’s mentally unstable, she’s mentally unstable. But you say one, you say two. And so like I’m contradicting myself, I’m just sharing my thoughts and my back and forth in my head because one, remember the brain is an organ. Your heart is an organ. Your kidneys, they’re organs. If I have kidney problems, if I have a heart issue, I go to the doctor, the doctor tell me, take this medication. Most likely I’m going to take it without much questioning. Most likely I’m going to say, okay, this is going to help me, help my heart, help my kidneys. But when it comes to the brain, we tend to be a little bit more taboo from that. And the brain is an organ and the brain can malfunction just like your heart can malfunction, just like your kidneys can malfunction. But of course, when it comes to the brain, you talk about the seat of consciousness and all that stuff. the brain is not just, physical or chemical. It’s also, I think, that there’s spiritual aspect here. And as we get further down in the episode, I want to talk about that aspect of it, because I think that’s where society is going wrong with this. Because what Big and Kill is saying, yes, makes sense, different standard for legal insanity and medical insanity, But it’s a hard battle to fight. And I’m glad I wasn’t one of the jurors, but it’s a hard battle to fight. Because it come down to left and right and all these things without any solid spiritual guidance. And that’s where the country is really missing on this whole inticacy stuff.
[Piers Morgan & Megyn Kelly]
She’s chased Dawson, the middle son, who is 3, into another room, we believe, to get the cord around his neck. Each one would have taken at least two to three minutes. Each child suffered mightily at the hands of the woman who was supposed to love them the most. They saw her coming for them. They ran after having watched their siblings get murdered. It was the most atrocious crime one could commit on this earth. And so those circumstances together tell me this person belongs to be treated in the criminal system, not the medical one. And just one final point, Piers, There was a woman in America decades ago named Constance Fisher in Maine who drowned all three of her children. She was placed in a mental facility. She was turned out of that mental facility not long thereafter because they said, you know what, she’s gotten it together. This is a mother. She loved her kids. She didn’t really, she’s not like some crazy murderer. She went back to the husband, Carl, with whom she’d been prior. They had three more kids and she drowned them too. So we are playing with deadly serious stakes here. This woman does need to be locked up and not put into a Massachusetts mental facility with a bunch of bleeding hearts that have a high likelihood of turning her through the revolving door back out to reproduce and potentially harm another again.
[MCG]
No, having this been Texas, Florida, you know, Tennessee, I believe that the outcome may be a little bit different. But it being Massachusetts, who knows? Anyways. Here’s Nancy Grace. She is also, I think, a former lawyer or even judge or something, but she has a legal background.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
Just as simple as that.
[MCG]
She was another guest on the same episode of Pierce Morgan Show.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
Come on. You know what I found out? You know what I found out, Pierce? I found out that people were taking bets on the Clancy trial. That is sick. What Gul is doing that? I mean, three dead children. Piers, this is something I normally would tell a jury. I don’t really talk about it on air, but now I feel like I have been forced to in the past few days. Those strangulations of those three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, were so ferocious. partially because of the licature itself. They were exercise bands, which are stretchy like a bungee cord. So Rimsey Clancy, who admits she killed the children, that’s not up to discussion, had to pull and pull and readjust tension, as experts call it. Translation, pull even harder, which means these children’s necks had to be deformed, shrunk down like that. with their head on top of a little neck like that, by the time mommy was done with them. I mean, let’s just think about that for a moment.
But is that the action, Nancy?
It’s all about Lindsay Clancy.
Right, I mean, I had that debate with Megan Kelly earlier, because is that the actions of somebody of sound mind, or could it be she was genuinely suffering from a psychosis? which compelled her to do this, and it remains just as heinous a crime, but did they charge her with the wrong thing? Should they have charged her with something which, rather than first degree murder, where you’d have to make a calculation if this was cold-blooded, premeditated, and so on, that actually she lost her mind, did this despicable crime, and she’d be incarcerated in some institution for many, many years, but not convicted of first degree murder, because as it turned out, 11 of the jurors just wouldn’t accept that’s what happened.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
Really? Is that what you think, Piers? Because I have been listening very carefully to what
[MCG]
the– No, again, that’s why I want to be careful with what the jurors were going to convict her on, because a lot of folks are just conflating a whole lot of stuff. The charge that they were going to convict her on is not guilty by the reason of insanity, meaning that, of course, she’s not guilty. For the reason of insanity, that means she would have been sentenced to a mental institution. Now, the reason why that is so taboo or not justice for the children is because she could be let out in three months or 20 years. Who knows? But once some doctor say that she’s mentally stable again, because they’re not guilty, she would be let out. But they weren’t simply saying she wasn’t guilty of the action. Again, it’s affirmative action meaning saying, I did it, but I’m not legally responsible because of my mental state or because of self-defense. In her case, it wasn’t self-defense, it was of mental state.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
The jurors are now unbundling. One of them said, well, we had to do not guilty by reason of insanity or else she wouldn’t get the treatment she so desperately needs. In other words, we were worried about the sentencing. That juror also said she would never get therapy in prison irrelevant to guilt or innocence. They are not to concern themselves with sentencing. And so much more, another juror has just come out, the fourth juror, and says, maybe I still believe she’s guilty. What? So my point is, yes, you’re stating that is it possible she was insane for 18 minutes because she Apple mapped her husband’s trip on the errands she sent him on. She mapped how long he would be gone from the home. She called the CVS store manager to make sure they’d have pediatric Miralax. So the husband, Patrick Clancy, wouldn’t call her in the middle of killing her children. But yet he still did call her.
[MCG]
Of course, he’s a guy out shopping. Anyways.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
And she sounded perfectly normal, a tiny bit distracted because she was busy killing her children, but completely normal. That very morning, Pierce, she had gone to Cora, her daughter’s pediatrician, and interacted with nurses and doctors. And they said she was normal. She took the children to the park that afternoon, just a few hours before murdering them and sent pictures to her husband and her in-laws of them playing in the park. He spoke to her. He communicated with her and she says, Oh yeah, by the way, when you go pick up the food, can you stop at CVS and get this Miralax? She had been researching that since four o’clock, but she made it seem like an afterthought. So to you, she was- That door slams, suddenly a voice comes in her ear and says, Kill the children. And she says, Oh, okay. She had never heard it before, never heard it again. That is not, in my experience, and I have tried Not guilty by reason of insanities before, how auditory hallucinations start. They normally start up to a year before telling you to do this evil thing. You don’t hear them for 18 minutes of your life and then never again.
Nancy Grace, so good to talk to you. Can’t think of anyone better qualified to talk about this kind of thing.
Wait, we’re over? Aren’t you gonna argue with me a little bit?
Well, no, because I look at what happened here. And my view is not that there’s any doubt she committed a despicable crime and killed her three children. But 11 of the jurors were prepared to acquit her of first degree murder. And one guy held out. And so the judge ended the trial as a mistrial. But if he hadn’t held out, then she would have walked free.
They were going for a not guilty by reason of insanity, not of acquittal.
Right, so my point though is.
EGBRI.
I understand. But my point would have been if they had charged her with something else, not first degree murder, they might have all found her guilty. In other words, it may have been a cleanup piece.
Such as what?
Well, I don’t
[MCG]
agree with him because I think that they didn’t want to send her to prison. because they fear that she would not be getting the treatment that she, quote unquote, deserve. And 2, because women’s rights, feminism, or whatever case may be that was going on in the deliberation room with a bunch of women and just a few men. I don’t know, but that’s what I kind of think.
[Piers Morgan & Nancy Grace]
We would call it manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.
There was that charge, Pierce.
Yeah.
They were charged. The jury had that option. They had murder one, voluntary, involuntary, NGBRI, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty, a walk. They had the alternative to go with voluntary and they didn’t. And this morning we hear a juror say, I still think maybe she was guilty. It’s just these jurors are all over the map. They should just stop talking.
Well, I agree with that. We don’t really get much, we don’t get that in England, the jurors don’t do. media afterwards. It’s a very interesting American thing which is always fascinating and quite unsettling when you hear them. I’ve been listening to the same interviews as you have and it’s unsettling. Their stories are moving around all over the place and actually I think in the end quite a few of them felt really sorry for her. I don’t feel sorry for her. I think what she did was a despicable crime that snuffed out the lives of three young children. It’s just I think the fact it’s ended in a mistrial is extremely unfortunate and there might have been a better way legally to handle this.
It is. But one more thing, Piers, is in America, as you well know, because you’ve covered so many cases here, intent. Intent to commit a crime can be formed in the twinkling of a moment, the blink of the eye. The time it takes me to pull a gun and put a gun and pull the trigger is enough time under our jurisprudence to prove intent. It does not require a long drawn out plan such as poisoning Piers Morgan with a little bit of arsenic every day till he kills over six months from now. It can be formed just like that. In the time she slams the door behind her husband, one hour later, he comes back. All of his children are dead. He comes to her. She says, I tried to kill myself. She didn’t mention the children. When she comes out of it at the hospital, her first words, some of them are, do I need a lawyer? And I need to call Patrick and see where we stand. not anything about the children. That’s disturbing, and that was no longer under the influence of the voice.
[MCG]
Well, what’s your commentary?
[Jay]
I’m having a hard time understanding Pierce’s point because he’s saying that if they had gone for a different verdict, It sounds like he’s saying if they had gone for an insanity plea or something along those lines.
[MCG]
Second degree. Basically what he’s saying, like, would be like second degree involvement months later.
[Jay]
Right, but Nancy is saying that the American equivalent was made available to them.
[MCG]
Exactly.
[Jay]
So why does he keep making that point?
[MCG]
I don’t think you understand.
[Jay]
Oh, okay. Then, okay, that’s a different story altogether. I’d like to go back to what you said about the whole mental health issue that we’re going to be talking about later, because I think it’s important to point out that the mind is not the same thing as your brain or your mental health. The mind is something completely different. And so we’re talking about unsaved people who, they don’t belong to God, they don’t fear his word, they’re not serving him, not following him. And so they’re in a Romans 1 state where they’ve repeatedly rejected God and his word. They’ve repeatedly walked in darkness. And so they’ve been given over to this. They’ve been given over to their sin, given over to their sinful thought patterns. And this is the intersection between, which is something I know that we’re going to talk about later, the intersection between mental health, Christianity, the mind, all those things intersect at this particular juncture in this trial. And I don’t understand why as a people, We tend to make allowance for crime under the umbrella of mental health. In other words, it’s somehow less egregious or not worthy of as great a sentence as it would be if you had a sound mind. I’m not even sure. Maybe I’m the dull. tool in the shed here. I don’t understand why that’s even an option. Why should it matter if you were in or out of your mind? You did this crime. The punishment should be what it is.
[MCG]
Well, I would be careful with that because.
[Jay]
What am I not seeing here?
[MCG]
One, treating someone based upon their mental state or their mind development differently than someone who is, is rooted in our laws. So of course, Lindsay Kensey is claiming self-defense, not self-defense, but affirmative defense based on insanity. But to some degree, it’s the same way we cheat children. If a two-year-old, three-year-old happened to get a hold of their parents’ handgun and happened to be strong enough to pull the trigger and the bullet hit one of their siblings or sibling die, we don’t take that three-year-old and throw them into prison and try them and say, you’re guilty of murder. They did the action, but we can appreciate that the menswear is not there. The guilty mind is not there because the three year old may not be able to fully appreciate, I don’t know if that’s the right word, what they have done because they don’t have the mental state or the mental development to understand that what they did is dangerous. And a lot of states, the parents would have been jammed up there for having an unsecured handgun lying around where a three old can get a hold of it. And I know I’m making a weird comparison, but follow me here. It’s similar to the insanity defense. They’re saying that the mental state of this adult, the mental state, they can’t fully appreciate what they have done. That’s the defense. And it’s kind of the same thing. When you think about the reason why we have minors treat them differently, we’re saying their mind is not there. so they cannot be guilty of the charge that is presented to them. When you’re insane, truly insane, we’re saying you’re still at the same time as a men’s rear, you can’t fully appreciate what you have done. In other words, if you were in a sound mind, you probably would not have done this.
[Jay]
The reason I can’t see it is because when you’re talking about children, it’s not the same because they are not their minds are still developing. They are still children. We know the capacity for higher ordered or directional thinking is there. But for a grown woman? For an adult? So at what point then, legally, well, I suppose that we can’t even answer this question because if you have someone whose mind or whose thought processes have been corrupted by the neglect of the mind, how do you draw that line? in order to assign guilt or assign culpability for what they’ve done. Well, again, there’s a degree of innocence with children because their minds, their minds not only haven’t developed, but generally children have not.
[MCG]
I see what you’re saying. Let me say this because again, this is not anything specifically new in our legal system. Just like you can say the child did not have the capacity, you can say the mentally insane person did not have the capacity to. Again, I know I’m making a weird comparison because I don’t compare the child to a grown person, but ignore the fact of that and kind of put it in the mental state. Because we’re basically saying the child doesn’t have the mental state or the men’s wear, the guilty mind. to appreciate the action he has done. We’re saying the mentally insane person doesn’t have the mental capacity to appreciate what they have done. Again, not defending Lindsay Clancy, I’m just saying that the law is being somewhat balanced across here because also we have something called, what do you call it, crimes of passion, where a man walking on her, another man with his wife, and he pull out a gun right away and shoot that man and maybe shoot his wife as well. In some jurisdiction, they will give him a lesser sentence because it was a prime of passion. And it’s the same thing they’re saying because of his mental state or mental capacity at that time or what triggered his action, he could not fully appreciate what he has done. So the law, in some sense, is being consistent. So if you’re going to argue this on a legal level, I think you’re going to run into a lot of what the jurors run into. Especially because in this country, everything quickly becomes political. You’re going to run into a lot of what the jurors run into because it comes down to this, I believe, where do you draw your moral compass? If you draw a moral compass from society and you say, hey, mental issues need to be taken care of, we as a society don’t take care of mental issues well enough. And because of all that, we’re not going to convict someone who clearly was showing mental issues. No, Nancy Grace and Megan Kelly had strong evidence to show why she wasn’t mentally insane or should not be treated as she was mentally unstable at the time of the murder. But also the defense put on experts and also she was on what, 13 different medications at a time.
[Jay]
I said 13 at a time. It’s unclear whether she was consistently taking each of the medications, but she was prescribed 13.
[MCG]
Right. But also she checked herself into a mental institution. Her husband said that she was mentally unstable. There’s evidence of evidence or evidence to show. Again, if you’re arguing this on a legal ground to show that on a medical ground to show that there was something going on, that is undisputable. There was something going on, whether she planned it and all that stuff. And I agree, there’s strong evidence to show that this was planned, organized thinking, but there are also strong evidence to show that she was mentally unstable. So again, I’m going to come to it, but I don’t think that winning the battle is on the mental or the legal side, because you’re going to come down to lawyers argue all the time, and they say, if you ask 10 lawyers for their opinion, you’re going to come out with 11, going to walk away with 11 opinions. Because lawyers teach you argue all the time. Greater minds have discussed this and argue this, and they can’t agree. The jurors can’t agree. The lawyers in the court didn’t agree. This is not as simple as legally she should be or mentally not because the persecution put on doctors that showed that she wasn’t mentally insane and the defense put on stuff that said she mentally insane and the evidence to support both of them. I think there’s two sides of the coin here. I have one more clip here and this is the opposite of Megan Kelly and Nancy Grace. This is actually Sonny Houston.
[Jay]
Hang on, let me take my blood pressure medicine. Okay, hold on.
[MCG]
I took this from the officer Tatum commentary. I cut out his commentary. So you might hear some jump in the recording, but I just tried to get what Sonny Hosting. So here’s Sonny Hosting.
[The View take]
Mm-hmm. You know, the insanity defense has been around in Massachusetts for 182 years. So I think it’s well established. And I thought absolutely that she was not criminally responsible by reason of insanity. And the reason I felt that I feel so strongly about this holdout juror is because I was a holdout juror. in a case, in the Daniel Rakowitz case. I don’t know if people remember it, the butcher.
[MCG]
No, she got a lot of backlash on this, that she wasn’t actually the whole juror. There was another man that was doing it because apparently he was either homeless or something and he wanted to extend the trial so he can get the three free meals per day and the $15 per day that they were paying him. So anyways, there have been a lot of fact checking and saying that she wasn’t the whole juror. But What I want you to walk away from it is her frame of mind. I think the case she’s talking about happened in 1991. This is 2026. And she hasn’t changed in 35 years.
[The View take]
Tompkins Square Park. It was in 19– The guy who ate the victims? Yes. You were on that jury? You’re going to need to explain more. Yes, I was. And when I went to law school, and when I brought it up, At the Hot Topics meeting, I don’t think everyone believed me. And then my producer looked it up and I’m in the New York Times. And apparently several jurors questioned afterwards that one holdout juror was principally responsible for preventing them from returning a guilty verdict. That was me. And it was because I saw clearly that he was psychotic. Of course. He was in a psychosis. He did not mean to kill her. And once he killed her, he panicked. He chopped up her body parts. Yes, boiled her body parts, tried to commit the perfect crime, and then fed her– Even got this guy off?
[MCG]
I don’t know if the clip is going to mention this, but she voted or her verdict was not guilty by reason of insanity. This guy, kill a lady. I think she was a woman of the night. He killed her, chopped her up, cooked her body in a soup, and fed this woman to homeless people.
[Jay]
Oh, but just psychosis. Okay.
[MCG]
Anyways, let Sonny continue.
[The View take]
No, but he fed, that’s how much I believe in the insanity defense. And he fed her body parts to the unhoused. Excuse me, can I move over? Yes. I don’t need to be a ref. But all that being said, it was so clear to me in the jury room. And we were sequestered for 9 days. One juror threw a chair at me. They were so angry with me. But one by one, I picked them off and said, what about this? What about that? And we ended up, all 12, unanimously voting that he was not criminally responsible by this reason. That’s why it should be a law of insanity.
[MCG]
At least Joy Beha, I think at least that’s a good interjection. He was just trying to be funny.
[Jay]
Oh brother.
[The View take]
Still in a mental institution being treated. That’s a different type of prison and he’s being treated because he’s sick. Yeah. Is there any way that he could walk or be on the streets? No, no. Yes, I did. That’s not true. Because if a doctor says- Oh, counselor. If a doctor says that he is now cured, And he’s a schizophrenic. He’s not gonna be cured. If a doctor says with medication he could live in society, there is a possibly… They actually just brought that case back up, and it was, and they did Andrea Yates because the doctor said he cannot be. Well, Andrea Yates, for example, keep it.
[MCG]
Wrote a clip.
[The View take]
Up in her psych ward to be released, and she herself is saying, I cannot leave. Yeah. Like, so- So the insanity-
[MCG]
See again, Sonny, she’s a lawyer, but she doesn’t seem to understand it. Yes, if a doctor said that this guy is now fit, whether with medication or he has been cured of his psychosis, yes, he will walk free because they declare him not guilty. The only reason why he’s in the institution because they say he’s mentally insane.
[The View take]
Defense is a real thing, and I think this lawyer, who wants the juror investigated, that’s gonna have a chilling effect. That’s very important. Jury duty is a duty. It is one of the most important things I think I’ve ever done in my life. It was extremely difficult, but to investigate a juror for doing his or her duty is despicable.
[MCG]
Yeah, so there you have it. At least one thing I’ll give to her, Sonny, she is consistent for the last 35 years.
[Jay]
She’s consistently awful.
[MCG]
Yes, but at least for the 35 years, she’s consistent. But I look it up. You know, there have been several parents who have deleted their children, you know, even in Texas. And Jay Yates in 2001 joined her five children. Her first conviction was overturned after false testimony by the persecution expert. And at her 2006 retrial, she was found not guilty by the reason of insanity and committed to a psychiatric hospital. The defense centered on postpartum psychosis and schizophrenia. And there’s a whole list of different people that have killed their children, and some of them were unsuccessful in their claim of insanity, some were. So this is nothing new in this country where people have done horrific crimes and they committed to some sort of mental hospital because they are found not guilty by the reason of insanity. I wish there was some sort of consistency, but the thing is, what they’re ignoring is human nature. Human nature is going to say, hey, what are we going to do with the woman who wants, quote unquote, her freedom and her kids are.
[Jay]
hindrance.
[MCG]
And a court tail and decides you’re going to get rid of them by reason of insanity. The standard needs to be a bit higher.
[Jay]
And there have been many murderers that were previously convicted that have tried to enact this not guilty by reason of insanity by saying, oh, you know, I was in psychosis. Look at my case again. Look at my case again. There has been at least three that I know of where they have come back with an attempt to have their cases revisited by reason of insanity or they were in psychosis or whatever the situation is. At which point do we draw the line?
[MCG]
Yeah, we’re going in a very slippery
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
Because quite honestly, I think that anyone who will grab a weapon or anyone who will kill anybody, there’s some sort of mental issue going on there.
[Jay]
Absolutely. Like every single part of us has been affected by the fall. Our bodies, our brains, the world at large, everything has been affected by the fall. To deny that there are weaknesses and defects in mental capacity and mental clarity is to deny the fall. So before anyone says, hey, you just don’t understand neuroscience or whatever, I get it. Yes, mental issues are of concern. What I don’t agree with is this, it seems like we’re making excuse for these things. We’re conflating mental issues with sin. We’re not differentiating between mental issues and the mind, and we’re not engaging the law from a biblical perspective. So naturally, we’re going to get this wrong. And I think perhaps as a people, as a society, our judicial system, we need to revisit this because now people are using this as a defense in order to evade punishment, to escape punishment for their crimes, for their sins even. And that’s something
[MCG]
Yeah, that’s the most dangerous part I see is that ignoring human nature, the slippery slope, and the fact that, hey, a lot of these people. And then what about, I hate to go this way, what about people who… kill for religious reasons. Isn’t that some sort of mental insanity as well? What about people that do mass shooting? Their mental state is not stable.
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
So if we’re going to give Lindsay Clancy or anybody one of these stuff without truly making sure that they have the capacity to understand what they have done. I think Lindsay Kensey had the capacity to understand what she’s done, just like Jeffrey Dahmer had the capacity to understand what he’s done. To me, it’s not whether or not they’re crazy medically, because yes, I do agree they’re crazy medically, but do they have the capacity to understand what they have done? I would argue that a three-year-old may not have the capacity to understand what they’ve done, but I think Lindsay Kensey has the capacity to do what she’s done. So whether or not she’s mentally instable or not, I don’t care. Can I say to her, do you understand that you kill your kids? If her answer is yes to that, maybe need a professional to answer that question so they can get a clear answer, then I think she should be punished.
[Jay]
Okay. In today’s world, we also have the concern of psychiatric and mental health type drugs that have been prescribed to people that can alter brain chemistry and mental faculties to the point where they are more susceptible to do this sort of thing. Not that I have a tinfoil hat on right now, perhaps I do. Take what I’m saying with a grain of salt, but I do not believe that the medications that we prescribe to people have been sufficiently studied and sufficiently vetted when it comes to the realm of side effects and other dangers. The effect that it would have on people to affect them mentally. There are people who have been affected by medications and have… had mental health diagnoses as a result of taking that medication, whether it’s some type of psychosis or whatever other type of mental health discrepancy or tragedy that you would have to identify. So now we have this realm of things like SSRIs and other medications that we have to deal with if the law only looks at whether or not someone has the mental capacity to understand if what they’re doing is wrong. I just recently saw a very scary statistic, something along the lines of somewhere between 50 and 60% of women are some kind of mental health. I’m not even sure what they’re called. They’re not necessarily SSRIs. They’re just medications that are prescribed for mental health issues. If that significant amount of people are being prescribed medications, what does that mean for our legal system that looks at whether or not you had let’s say the mental capacity to understand that what you’re doing is wrong. We’re just going to have to uproot the whole thing, because what would stop someone from saying, well, you know, it wasn’t me, it was my medication, or well, it was this, or well, it was that. At some point, we have to hold people’s feet to the fire, whether they’re sane or not, when it comes to the crimes that they commit, the acts that they commit. I’m not entirely sure, let me say it like this, I’m not entirely sure if we should give that caveat to people any longer. For children, that’s a different story because now we’re talking about just development. That’s a different story. But for adults, at least, can we just agree that whether or not you’re mentally there, you have to pay the price for the crime that you commit? I don’t know.
[MCG]
Yeah, I don’t know, but I’m
[Jay]
not making any sense. I can’t even put my words together, but it just seems to me like it would be a slippery slope. I’m sorry, I cut you off.
[MCG]
I’ll just keep it to the having the capacity to know that they did something wrong. But anyways, Let’s go into a break, then we come back and we talk about the whole lot juror, and then we’ll get into some of the other stuff. You’re listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. We are sharing our thoughts on the Lindsay Clancy child. We’ll be right back.
[Jay]
Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removingbarriers.net slash donate. Removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
All right, Jay, so we have looked at some different takes from Sonny Hostin and Nancy Grace, Megan Kelly. Let’s talk a little bit about the whole lot juror because one of the jurors were being interviewed by Gail King. And she was absolutely shocked that the whole Oduro was a black man. So he’s a black man of Haitian heritage from the Caribbean, of course. And a lot of Caribbean people are very religious. So that could have affected his decisions there. He has also been dragged through the media with accusations from his ex-wife that there was some sort of domestic violence there. and the charges were dismissed and whether or not he clearly indicated that on his jury application form and stuff like that, or the form that they had to fill out. I don’t think you have application form for jury. The form you have to fill out or whatever that, the prosecution, the defense, know that stuff. I have a video, but if you have anything to say, you can jump in. Let’s watch the video. So I think this is of the whole lot jurors explaining why he made the decision he made.
[The Lone Juror]
Hi, my name is Michael Peggy Desmonville, also known as the law and juror. I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that’s at hand, the ones that can’t speak for themselves.
[MCG]
And I also add that apparently he’s a new father of a baby girl, so his heart was definitely in the right place, different from maybe where the other jurors were.
[The Lone Juror]
The ones that can’t defend themselves and the one that can’t fight the battles, and those are Cora, Dawson, and Callan. A little bit about me. I want to thank God for my Catholic faith. I want to thank God for blessing me with the ability to love my daughter. And foremost, I would like to thank everyone, every individual that has supported me throughout this difficult situation. Your prayers, your emotional support, your psychological support, is a tremendous to my heart that I feel, that I sense, that I know. I do want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you.
[MCG]
You’re welcome, bro. I think there was also a Gifts and Go fundraiser that raised well over 100,000. At least the last time I said it was over 100,000. Might be higher at this point for him. So I’m just going to comment on this and then because From what, and I don’t know if this is true, but from what I gather from the alternate, his ex-wife accused him of domestic violence. He decided to end the marriage because he realized that his wife married him for immigration benefits and stuff like that, and then she accused him of domestic violence. I just want to share a little bit about the US immigration system. Since I’ve been through the immigration system, I think I have a little bit of knowledge on it. A lot of Americans I’ve spoken to know nothing about the US immigration system.
[Jay]
Because they don’t have to go through it. Yeah.
[MCG]
Exactly. They don’t have to go through it. They don’t really concern themselves about it. But as an immigrant to this country, and I’ve been through several legal stages or several legal statuses in this country, I can understand why his ex-wife did that. Because what other folks don’t know, again, from what I understand, the ex-wife, she came into the country legally. She married him. Apparently, he believed that she married him so she can get legal status. He divorced her because of that, because he figured there was no love here, what the case would be. Speculating. Now, when you married to an American citizen, like I married to an American citizen, you can accelerate or shortcut the process of becoming a U.S. citizen or getting a green card. There are other ways to get green cards besides marrying a U.S. citizen. But the easiest and quickest way to get one is through married and marriage of U.S. citizen. What the United States Citizen Immigration Services does and what the law stipulates is that let’s say you get married to a U.S. citizen, you apply for the green card, you pay the fee, do the biometrics and all the other stuff that they have to do, the FBI background check, everything that you have to go through, they’ll give you what is called a conditional green card. and that green card is valid for two years. Within 90 days of the green card being expired, you need to apply for what it was called a permanent green card, which is basically permanent residence. So you apply during that time. When you apply again, you go to go through the same process. The process is you have to prove that the marriage is a real marriage. It wasn’t something that done just for immigration benefits. So what they look for, they look for marital stuff. They look at your wedding pictures. They look at see if families were at the wedding. Again, no one of these eliminate you from the process saying, oh, there was no family at the wedding, so this is not real. People have different dynamics, but they do look for things, a combination of things that would say you’re married. They can look for combination of assets. Do you have a joint bank account? Again, if you don’t, that does eliminate you, but these are things they look for. Do you live in the same place? Both of your names on the rental agreements? Are your cars in both of your names, so forth and so forth. They look for that. Do you have kids and stuff like that? There was a lot of things they look for. If you happen to get divorced or separated within that two years of having that conditional green card, you can still get the permanent green card under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is that you can say, hey, I truly married this person because I love them, but because this person was X, Y, and Z, I had to leave, I had to divorce. One of those conditions is domestic violence. So I’m speculating here. If he said that he divorced his wife, ex-wife because… She was in the country legally. She was trying to defraud him, just to get papers. I didn’t know she’s claiming domestic violence. It could simply be that she was either advised by a lawyer or she read there several pages of application or she educated herself on YouTube or something. I tell you, when I was going through the process, I read all the instructions. I was on YouTube. I was reading everything because we were doing it on our own. And one of the thing was Yes, you can still get the green card if you get divorced within the two years if you can prove it was a divorce of not your fault. So she claimed domestic violence. That’s one of the major things that they look for. They will still give you the permanent green card if you can prove that your husband or your spouse was physically abusive. So she could have simply accused him just to get the papers. If she married him just for the papers,
[Jay]
It’s not beyond the pale that she would accuse him for the papers.
[MCG]
Just for the papers. So again, I don’t know what happened here, but if that’s true that she married him for papers, it could be that she lied for papers too, you know, because after three years of having a green card that when you’re married to an American citizen, she can become a citizen. Usually, it will be after seven years of having a green card, I think, five or seven years of having a green card, you can become a citizen. And it’s not guarantee that you go to get it renewed, especially employment. There are folks who have gotten green cards because a company gave them a H-1B, then from the H-1B they can get a green card. That’s a longer process of getting a green card. There are people who have been on green card for years and they’re still not a citizen of this country. But you want to shortcut the process, especially if you come in this country illegally. If you’re married to an American citizen and you have the money, you go to shortcut the process, you know, Anyway, that’s my take.
[Jay]
Yeah. You did the research that a lot of these media personnel and TikTok and internet sleuths were not able to do.
[MCG]
I don’t know if I did the research. I just have been through the process.
[Jay]
You have a more level-headed understanding of his situation than they did because when they doxxed him, they went through and did a lot of internet sleuthing and a lot of detective work to find out who he was and the charges that were against him that happened so many years ago. And they deliberately portrayed him as an abuser. or someone who was not forthcoming about his previous charges and so that he should not have even been on the jury because of those previous charges. And it was a smear campaign carried out not just by the internet crazy ladies, crazy, I almost said crazy cat ladies, the crazy ladies online that said that Patrick was the real killer and that the juror was this evil man. Well, all of this they were doing to smear him. and to paint him out to be this unreasonable, crazy, untrustworthy guy. And that’s why they were not able to come to a unanimous verdict. But hearing him speak right now, he at least appears to me to be of sane mind. He appears to be level-headed and just a regular, normal, upstanding dude. But because he didn’t agree with them, because he didn’t allow himself to be henpecked into a non-guilty verdict, or not guilty verdict, they smeared him, they doxxed him. him and his family, from what I understand, received death threats and all kinds of nonsense that he had to endure because of his obviously biblical stance. Now, he did say he’s Catholic, so obviously when it comes to the salvific issues, there would be a difference there, but obviously had some measure of biblical principles that would allow him to say, no, what she did was murder, she’s guilty.
[MCG]
Yeah, and I will add this too, because he’s from at least Haiti or has Haitian heritage. I’m from the Caribbean as well. Haiti is in the Caribbean. The Caribbean people are very religious people. And you’ll find it hard, at least I’m thinking in my mind, you’ll find it hard for a Caribbean person to say, hey, I understand your difficulties because you’re talking about the countries in the Caribbean are considered terrible countries. The struggle there is real. And a lot of folks, they don’t understand first world issues. They will look at Lindsay Clancy and say it is absolutely mind boggling that a mother would kill her kids. For what? Lindsay Clancy had basically everything that the feminist liberal group said a woman should have.
[Jay]
Absolutely.
[MCG]
She had a supporting husband. He worked from home. He took time off. She had a nanny. She had access to mental health care. She had access to her in-laws. She lived in at least a upper Made to upper middle class home. She had everything they wanted her to have.
[Jay]
And it’s still not enough. I wanted to point out, it’s still not enough.
[MCG]
And she still did this. So he’s looking at it and say, realize, hey, I may have relatives in Haiti who live in a one room home with five kids and they’re not killing them.
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
I may still be sending money home to my grandparents because they are retired and don’t have any support. Yet they’re not killing anybody.
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
But this first world problem here that my kids are too much, I have to take them out. That may be his chain of thought. I’m not saying, of course, I’m not from Haiti, but I think there’s a little bit of a Caribbean thinking there. I could be wrong because I’m not in his head. Anyways, I’m going to play a clip here from Gail King and her surprise.
[Gail King show clip]
We welcome you back to CBS Mornings. We’re gonna begin this half hour with a case that has really captivated the country. We’re talking about the Lindsay Clancy murder case.
[MCG]
And she’s interviewing one of the jurors, and this is the one who have made all kind of rounds on different television shows or whatever, news shows, all around after the case.
[Gail King show clip]
And we are all still talking about that case. On Thursday, Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion asking for the judge to acquit her and throw out the case. We’re also learning new information about what happened behind closed doors during the jury deliberations. One of those jurors was Paula Devlin, who we’re happy to say joins us in studio. Paula, thank you so much for joining us, because I know that many of you are feeling a lot of pressure these days. But I want to get right to the vote. The vote was 11 to 1, as we know. But when you initially went into the deliberation room, it wasn’t 11 to 1.
No, it wasn’t.
What was the split at that time?
It was eight, two, and two. So eight people were leaning towards not responsible, two hadn’t decided, and two thought guilty.
What was your vote?
I was leaning towards not responsible from all the evidence I had heard. And I had certain things that I wanted to look at when we got into deliberation. And everything that we talked about and every point that everybody in the room made, just kind of reinforce that more and more.
For you.
Yes.
I’m curious about the jurors themselves, because we know it was nine women, three men. What was the age range? What was the racial makeup? I haven’t heard any of that.
What was it? 70-ish to 22. And one person of color, and then everybody else was white. A lot of the jurors had children.
One person of color, was a person of color a woman or a man?
A man.
A man. Is a holdout juror a person, a black man?
Yes.
A black man is a holdout juror?
[Gail King show clip]
Yes.
Well, I have to sit with that for just a second. Was there…
[MCG]
No.
[Jay]
She genuinely stumped, too. I can’t with this clip, because notice how she asked. was the colored juror, no she didn’t say colored, but was the black juror male? And only after the lady confirmed that the juror was male, and then that’s when she jumped to the conclusion, or at least asked the leading question that. the holdout juror was a black male. So not only do you see the man-hating element here, but also this disbelief that someone that checks all of the intersectional boxes could possibly vote.
[MCG]
Well, he didn’t check all of them. He’s male. Oh, right, he’s male.
[Jay]
That’s right. That’s right. Sorry. Yep, he’s male. He missed one of them. He couldn’t possibly have voted guilty.
[MCG]
Well, what goes to my mind here, and of course, I don’t know how to prove this, but I wonder if that wasn’t deliberate. I’m not 100% sure that she didn’t know.
[Jay]
You mean her reaction was deliberate or?
[MCG]
Her question, line of questioning wasn’t deliberate, that she probably knew that was the case. Because basically, it was a soft toxin. Because she was asking, okay, this is a racial breakdown. This is a soft. And then, oh, it was a black man. If there’s only one black man on the jury, well, obviously, that’s easy to find.
[Jay]
Sure.
[MCG]
So the fact that she was stumped, let’s give her the benefit of the other say it was real. It goes back to this box. Because you’re black, you must be Democrat, and you must be this, you must be that. There’s no individuality. Come on. This is ridiculous.
[Jay]
If you’re black, you must be progressive. You must agree with us. You can’t think for yourself. You can’t think for yourself. You can’t be conservative. You can’t love God and family and children, and you can’t hold people responsible for their crimes or for their sins. You just can’t because you’re black. I, for one, if I could just put this out into the internet for everyone. I am sick of this. is going to come back and bite the so-called black community in the tail. Not just the black community, but anyone who buys into intersectionality, anyone who buys into the minority victim complex, it’s going to come back and bite them because essentially what you’re saying is you cannot be a functioning member of society. because of your race or your gender or whatever the fill in the blank requirement is, intersectional requirement is. And that in many ways is worse. than just outright racism. At least with outright racism, I know what I’m dealing with fair and upfront. But when you try to absolve someone of their responsibility to be a moral, good, solid character, a person of good character in their society, you make it so that they can never be that in their society. And everyone, I’m sick of it.
[MCG]
But not only that, you have it here that it is acceptable now for middle-aged and older white women because this lady here, I’ll assume she’s in her 50s or maybe early 60s, for middle age, an older white woman to beat up on a black man. And the liberals are okay with that because he didn’t vote in their favor.
[Jay]
Right.
[MCG]
So therefore, he loses black card, quote unquote, because he didn’t vote in their favor. If the table was flipped, they would have cry racism. But all of a sudden, now it’s okay for a bunch of white people to just beat up on a black man because…
[Jay]
And bully him and literally put his life in danger because they’ve been receiving death threats.
[MCG]
And I learned that even some of them, I saw one clip where one lady says that she’s a non-practicing white, whatever that means, because she was saying, she was saying, she was talking about the holdout juror that he was black. And you say, as a non-practicing white.
[Jay]
What does that even mean? What’s A non-practicing white?
[MCG]
She’s a white woman that doesn’t affirm to racist? I don’t know.
[Jay]
Oh, for cry. Oh, it’s a white woman that lives in blackface. That’s probably what it is. Like, what?
[MCG]
does that mean? You have Gil King here that figure if you’re black, you must think this way. That’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that someone must think a certain way based on the color of their skin.
[Jay]
Well, yeah, that goes back to.
[MCG]
Again, I’m assuming Gil King is African American. African American is to me is not even about the color of your skin. It’s a culture.
[Jay]
It is a culture.
[MCG]
It’s a culture. So He’s not African-American. So that’s one against him that he’s not going to necessarily have the typical African-American demeanor. And I’m not even saying that all African-American men would have think that way. I’m thinking most African-American men would probably said no, probably did the same thing he did on this woman killing their kids. So any which way you put it is liberal women that are the ones that are, in my opinion, mostly supporting Lindsay. Anyways, let them continue.
[Gail King show clip]
Was there any specific evidence that swayed you? And I’m very curious about the evidence that he was opposed to. Let’s talk about the evidence for you first.
I think Dr. Resnick, his testimony about altruistic filicide was really impactful because All throughout the trial, we had all the witnesses. There had been nothing but good said about Lindsay and how amazing of a mother she was and how much she loved her children. We saw that in every picture that was taken of the house on the night that this happened. Everywhere you look, there was just love. There was a big sign that said, It’s a wonderful life.
[MCG]
All right, that’s just a facade. You go into someone’s home But I’ll give her this, though. And this is a strong evidence for Lindsay. Even the grandparents appeared to be on her side, which her in-laws, her former in-laws, which to me speaks volume because
[Jay]
sure, if anyone’s going to have something against you, it’s going to be your in-laws, right?
[MCG]
It would be the grandparents, right? Even the in-laws, the grandparents, the grandparents, because grandparents, you can even argue, maybe love the grandkids more than the parents themselves. Right. So I’ll give her that in Lindsay favor.
[Gail King show clip]
And, you know, there wasn’t anything that said she wasn’t that. And then to hear somebody talking about a real reason why all of a sudden this could happen, that was really impactful.
The fact that her mother-in-law testified on her behalf and her husband testified on her behalf, did that pull any weight for you?
Yes, it did. I think the prosecution tried to nudge Patrick to say something derogatory, and he wouldn’t. And, you know, that was very impactful. Even after all this time and even after knowing that this happened and losing his three children, he still couldn’t say anything really bad about her.
I think people still struggle with a case when they think about the children. And a lot of us do not understand postpartum psychosis, myself included. deep dive now.
[MCG]
What I would say about Patrick, we may talk about him a little bit later, but what I’d say about Patrick now.
[Jay]
Bless him.
[MCG]
I’m surprised on how quick he moved on, but I’ll just leave it as that. I don’t know what to draw from that. Maybe it’s nothing or maybe it’s something, but he moved on pretty quickly, which.
[Jay]
He was married three years later, was he not? Or am I mistaken?
[MCG]
Something like that. He’s married now and expecting a child, but he was married shortly after, in my opinion. And After you go through that kind of jolt, I don’t know. I’ll leave it as that. That’s one thing I would say against him in a sense, if that is even against him.
[Gail King show clip]
Since this case has started. But many people are still hung up that you can Google about going to CVS, how long it takes. You can have a conversation with your husband and you appear to be coherent. You don’t indicate that there’s anything wrong. Did the jury struggle with that, that how she was able to seemingly be so coherent, but at the same time be having a psychotic breakdown?
Yes.
You all discussed that in detail.
Yes, yes. And I think that was one of the things that the holdout juror really That was one of his main points.
Was what? He couldn’t wrap his head around that?
Yeah, that she could do this one at a time and then, you know, do all the steps that she did to go commit suicide.
And what did you all do to try to convince him? Because clearly, it was 8-2-2, so not — In the beginning, there were people who felt the same way that he did. Was there… Did you all work together as a group to try to convince him and what appeared to be his main resistance?
We all worked together and I don’t know if it was to convince him to start with. We all worked together to convince ourselves. And once we got to that point where it was 10 to two, it was really hard not, I felt very bad for them because They felt attacked. And there’s no way to not do that because that’s where we were talking.
At one point it was 10 to 2.
Yeah.
[MCG]
Can you imagine being in a room with a bunch of liberal white women? And she admit that they were being attacked.
[Jay]
They felt attacked. They were impacted. They were bullied.
[MCG]
But it was hard to not attack them.
[Gail King show clip]
And, you know, even in normal conversation, when it’s pointed at you and you have to defend yourself, it’s a hard thing to do. We don’t have to always do that. And so he he really just the way that it happened, like the sequence of how things happen.
Yeah.
And then we watched the video of Lindsay’s interview, and after that, he said, he had realized that it wasn’t murder in the first degree. That’s where we saw his doubt.
You know, Lindsay’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has now filed a motion where he says he wants the judge to acquit her and throw out the case. How do you feel about that?
I don’t feel good about that. Part of the reason why we wanted not responsible was that Everybody wants justice for the children. Those children never left that room. They’ve never left our hearts. And that was a way to get justice for those children. This wouldn’t have happened if Lindsay didn’t get lost in the system and failed by the system.
Her attorney said.
[Jay]
She wasn’t lost by the system and she wasn’t failed by the, although, okay, little side note, I for one am not in favor of these like just a plethora of medications prescribed to one person to treat mental disorders. I don’t even think we know, not even scientifically or as a people, how these medications interact with each other within the human body and the extent to which they have negative effects in each person. And because our brains and our psyche and everything is very individual, one medication might affect one person differently than another person on that same medication. So as a side note, I have issues with with medicines prescribed for mental health. That being said, whatever she needed, as you said earlier, MCG, was available to her. She had access to mental health professionals. She had access to all of the medications and everything that we would consider top tier, cutting edge, state of the art. Where is the state of mental health care right now? She had access to all of that. I don’t think it’s true that she was failed by the system.
[MCG]
I think she had more access to the system than most people.
[Jay]
Than most people, right.
[Gail King show clip]
Repeatedly she tried for help. What for you, what would be justice for Lindsay for you? And then we’ll go.
I think the not responsible and getting the help that she needs and making more awareness about postpartum, any part of it, and making more awareness about… the gap in she called the suicide hotline two times. And they turned her away because she didn’t have a plan. But she kept telling everybody she wanted to commit suicide.
All right. I’m very fascinated by the holdout, Gerard, learning that he’s a Black man today. Can you just tell me his age? I’m very curious.
[Jay]
Oh, for crying out loud.
[Gail King show clip]
I would guess in his 30s.
Oh, younger. All right. Paula Devlin, thank you. Thank you very much. You’re welcome. Really appreciate you coming today.
You’re welcome. Thank you so much.
[Jay]
I feel like the gears in her head were turning. Oh, younger. We didn’t indoctrinate him well enough. We didn’t get through to that one. We lost one.
[MCG]
How deary. How deary was a black man not fall in line. But what I want to highlight from the last few seconds there is that note what she asked. What does justice for Lindsay look like? Lindsay doesn’t need any justice.
[Jay]
Absolutely.
[MCG]
She’s the one who did the crime. She doesn’t need injustice. What about what justice for Cullen and Cora and Dawson look like. What does justice for them look like? It’s by putting their mother in a mental institution and say, hey, stay there until it get better. It could be three months and then you can walk. No, it looked like a life was taken and punishment should be carried out. And punishment, in my opinion, is at minimum jail time, prison time.
[Jay]
Bare minimum.
[MCG]
So
[Jay]
bare minimum.
[MCG]
So that’s where you see their train of thought. They don’t care too much about what it looked like for the kids. And if you notice when we play the clip from the whole of joy, he’s the one who brought it back and said, hey, this is about the three kids, not about Lindsay Clancy and her medical or mental state. So anyways, I guess we’ll continue with this, you know, What did the details of the trial reveal about the American people, maybe spiritually, socially, politically?
[Jay]
Oh man, we’ve covered a lot of it in response to these insane videos that we’ve been watching. But I think that the response that this trial has received on social media, whether it’s on YouTube or TikTok or Instagram, the different places that people place their social media responses, it has been so disheartening and so scary to see what some of these women come up with, these day drinker wine that take to social media to put their conspiracy theories out there that Patrick Clancy was the actual murderer and that he’s somehow framing Lindsay Clancy, that Lindsay Clancy was innocent and that she didn’t know what she was doing and that every woman has the same thing. Okay, I’ve had four children and more miscarriages. I understand the struggle that there can be around what you allow your mind to dwell on and how you think and how your body feels. when you are carrying children, delivering children, caring for children, all of the above. It’s difficult. And I’m not the first one to do it. I won’t be the last. Millions of women did it before me. Millions of women will do it after me. I understand all of that. But these women that have taken to social media to highlight these difficulties and use them to explain away and to excuse Lindsay Clancy’s crimes and her sins is baffling to me. I cannot understand it. Patrick Clancy and his lawyer seemed to be taking steps to sue a lot of these people who were making accusations and assertions that he was the actual murderer and that Lindsay Clancy wasn’t guilty even if she was guilty. And they not only did that, they also, as we mentioned before, took steps to bully and humiliate and smear and dox Michael Deseronville. So I I think it shows an element of either a social contagion that’s going on that’s exacerbated by social media, the putrefying of women’s brains in today’s social media climate, society permeated by social media, or is a window to show just how far we’ve fallen when we compare ourselves to the law of God as a people. The lack of the fear of the Lord, the lack of the biblical understanding of justice and of true justice for the actual victims, not who we perceive the victim to be because of some arbitrary standard set forth by the current leaders of society. It’s either there’s some sort of social contagion going on, exacerbated by social media, or it’s a mirror that we can see ourselves in, how far away we’ve fallen from the Lord as a people, as a nation. There’s also the element of, I think I touched on this as well, the delusion that a lot of women are under. The fact that Lindsay Clancy was able to raise over $1,000,000 in support in Gifts and Go and all of these other type of platforms, or it might be GoFundMe for Lindsay Clancy. There’s this girls club where women support women no matter what, no matter how heinous the circumstance, no matter how terrible the crime, you gotta support women. You see that often with women. You see that when it came to, goodness, what was that situation? I think there was some situation where these very high level women, I think it was a politician, that said there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women. I wish I remembered what the circumstances of that quote was, but there was some sort of national something going on, and because one lady would not follow suit with whatever woke nonsense was going on at the time, there was a very high-level politician that said something along the lines of there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help women. Here, when the women went up into outer space in the Blue Origin capsule and they were pretending to be astronauts, there was that famous singer, and then Gayle King was one of them, and all these other crazy ladies who went up there and they did this whole PR thing. And the backlash that they got and people that were arguing back and saying, oh, you can’t say that about them. They’re women, they’re doing something great, they’re blah, blah, blah. All this nonsense that goes to show that there is this delusion that women have where we support one another no matter what. And it doesn’t matter how terrible a thing that you do, I’ve got your back. You can never do wrong. Women are just these precious angels that can never do any wrong. I think this trial exposes that. Yes, women can do wrong. And the women that support the women that do wrong are just as deluded as the one who did wrong. So that’s another element too, this falling away from the law of God, from the truth of God’s word. I think all of that is a mirror for what we’re experiencing today. And the third thing I’d say, I know I’m rambling, I’m going to cut this short, the intersection between mental health, the mind, what the Bible says. And that’s something that we’re going to have to grapple with as a people in our judicial system. We’re going to have to grapple with that because it’s already sliding down the slippery slope and I think that we need to address that.
[MCG]
Yeah, I’ll say this because I don’t think what I’m going to say is going to be very popular and probably not going to be well received from both Christians and non-Christians alike. But what does it say about American people, spiritually, socially and politically? I think one, it says that we are six sinful bunch of people.
[Jay]
Absolutely.
[MCG]
We are in the my reclaim.
[Jay]
Yeah.
[MCG]
We’re in filth.
[Jay]
We’ve lost our minds. Absolutely.
[MCG]
And that also the Romans one effect that we worship the creature more than the creator. Lindsay Clancy getting all the support because she’s woman or because she has mental issues. She’s checked many boxes of intersectionality and people are going to say, well, let’s support her. But this is what’s probably going to get me in more trouble. I am not saying that mental health is not real. Let me just preface it by that. That’s my close disclaimer of what I’m saying. I’m not saying that mental health is not real. As I said earlier, I do think that we can have problems with our brains, just like we can have problems with our heart and our kidneys. Of course, the brain is a little bit different, but we can have problem with it and we have later problem taking medication for the heart, for the kidney, any other organ, but when it comes to the brain, we hesitate. The brain is an organ too. The mind is a little bit more complex nonetheless so here’s what I think as I said I don’t think it’s going to receive well so here I go here you go when I see the Bible speaks of mental health it is usually not always and I’m not sure if I can find one when it’s not but I’m going to say usually because I won’t say that I know everything that’s in the Bible I’ve read the book cover to cover but I’m going to say usually just to preface it usually when you see mental health in the Bible it is preceded by demon possession. Usually when you see mental health in the Bible, there is demon possession that’s also at play or oppression. The problem is, and again, the problem is that we are cheating something physically that might just be spiritual. Spiritual, yeah. Lindsay Clemson was on all the medications. She had all the help. She check herself in the mental institution. Could this have been a spiritual problem, but we treat it as a physical one? In other words, I’m going to get myself in trouble. Could Lindsay Clancy have been demon possessed? Absolutely. Yeah. She said she heard a voice. What kind of voice was she hearing? She might have, well, honestly, 100% heard a voice. And if he wasn’t a human voice, what voice was it? it had to be some sort of spirit. So this is a spiritual issue. When our Lord and Savior was upon this earth, he dealt with demon possession. Where did all those demons go? They’re still around, my dear friends. They’re still around. And people are still being possessed by evil spirit, unclean spirits. And you know what happened? We institutionalized them. We put them away. In modern society, we lock them up. Or if you don’t want to see them locked up, to Skid Row in California, you might find some there. But all I’m saying is that many times when people are talking about these mental issues, I, MCG personally believe that a lot of times this is demon possession. And I think Lindsay Clancy is Exhibit A. And I think many of the situations that we face in today’s climate when we have all this, and again, going to get myself in trouble, but I’m going to go all in.
[Jay]
Tell us how you feel.
[MCG]
And you can contact us at contact@removingbarrass.net. A lot of these transgender issues, again, could be demon possession too. Absolutely.
[Jay]
Absolutely. Yeah.
[MCG]
So did Lindsay Clancy hear a voice? I believe so. What voice was it? It was probably demon possession. So let’s go through it. I’m going to go to several verses where the Bible study show that people were some psychosis when they had a demon possession. Mark 1, 21 to 28, my pastor just preaching this, past Sunday, literally, but I had my notes before him, so I’m not stealing from him, but I had my notes, I had this prepared before he preached a message. 21-28 and they went into Capernaum and straightway on the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught and they were astonished by his Doctrine for he taught them as one that had Authority and not as the scribes and there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean Spirit demon possession and he cried out saying let us alone what have we to do with thee thou Jesus of Nazareth Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace and come out of him. So what was this man doing? He was basically shouting in public. He was a public organized setting in a church, and he got up and he was shouting, Jesus, I know you are. You’re the Holy One of Israel. We used to say he’s behaving crazy. The Bible tells us he had an unclean spirit. He was demon possessed. And Jesus rebuked him saying, hold thy peace and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit atoned him, basically acting crazy and cried with a loud voice, you can imagine they screamed. Oh, I can. In that synagogue, he came out of him and they were all amazed in so much that they questioned among themselves saying, what thing is this? What new doctrine is this? for with Authority commended he even the unclean spirits that they obeyed him and immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region about Galilee so Jesus told the un Spirit spirit to come out the un Spirit basically had the man thrown all over the place screaming before he came out today what we would call that probably says he’s some kind of psychosis he’s crazy he’s mentally ill the Bible says he had an unclean Spirit I’m not the one saying it I’m just believing it Mark 9, 14 to 29. And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him salute him, and he asked the scribes what question he with them. And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which had a dumb spirit, and whasoever he taketh him, he teareth him. And he foameth at the mouth, and gnashed it with his teeth, and paneth away. And I spake to the disciples that they should cast him out, and they could not. He answered him and said, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him unto me. Now notice the symptoms of this child who had a dumb spirit. As the Bible says, he teareth him, he foameth at the mouth, he gnasheth at his teeth, and he paneth away. Hey, I’m no medical professional, but I can guarantee you if you take this child to a mental health professional, they will most likely probably say schizophrenia or some sort of psychosis. I will say I’m 100% sure they will come back with some sort of diagnosis like that. But what did they say? Well, let’s continue. He answered and said, oh, faithless generation, how long shall I be with thee? How long shall I suffer thee? Bring him onto me. And they brought him unto him, brought him unto Jesus. And when he saw him, straight away the spirit tear him. And he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, how long is it ago since this came upon him? And he said, of a child, since he was basically a toddler, you know, maybe toddler of one, two, three years old. And oftentimes it had cast him into the fire and into the waters to destroy him. Then he cut a race and drop out the window. But if thou canst do anything, have compassion in us and help us. Jesus said unto him, if thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believe it. And straightway the father of the child cried out and said with tears, Lord, I believe, help down my unbelief. And when Jesus saw that the people came running together, he buked the foul spirit. He didn’t give him some medication. He didn’t try to balance the chemical in his brain. He said he rebuked the foul spirit, saying, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him and enter no more in him. And the spirit cried and rent him sore and came out of him and he was as one dead in so much that many said he’s dead. But Jesus took him by the hand and lift him up and he arose. And when he was coming to the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer So therefore, here’s a child with an evil spirit, a demon possession, and Jesus casts him out and they see the same symptoms that they’re talking about today. Same symptoms, self-harm, aggression, hallucinations, hearing voices.
[Jay]
Exactly.
[MCG]
Uncontrolled behaviors. Probehavior, yeah. And all of them have been demon possession. Luke 2:8, and certain women which have been healed of evil spirit and infirmities may recall Madeline out of whom went seven devils. Demon possession is real. Absolutely. And I believe a lot of the things we’re seeing today, and again, Lindsay Clancy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and a lot of these crimes and a lot of these things we see, you know, these mass shooting, I’m convinced on the spiritual side, a lot of these people are demon. possessed. As we give up God in our society, the Romans one effect, a lot of people are opening their hearts and minds to demon possession. And I think that’s where Lindsay Clancy went. You can argue maybe it was the medication that she took. I don’t know, but I am, in my personal belief, she was demon possessed. I think this might be the last or second to last one, but this one is found in Luke 8, 26 and 39 and also Mark 5, 1 to 20. So this one is pretty long. But this is the demonic of the Gadarenes. And they arrive at a country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And when he went forth to land, they met him out of the city, a certain man which had devils long time, and wear no clothes, neither abode in any house, homeless, naked, live among the tombs. abode in no house but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God, Most High? I beseech thee torment me not, for he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. ofttimes it had caught him and he was kept bound with trains and feathers and he break the bond superhuman strength and was driven of the devil into the wilderness. Jesus asked him saying, what is thy name? And he said, Legion, because many devils were entered in him. Now I want to stop this because a lot of folks believe that this man, there was sound coming out of him, but his mouth was necessarily moving. one preacher preach on this topic. He said that if Hollywood would accurately depict what was going on with this man, that many of us would not be able to watch that movie. Because you’re talking about someone that live among the tomb, they will bound him with trains and feathers and ropes or whatever the case may be, and he will break them. Superhuman strength. And he was talking and the way his body was moving and his reaction was moving wasn’t human. So basically sound was coming out of him and he wasn’t moving his mouth. demon possession. And they besought him that he would not command them to go into the deep. And there were there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain. And they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then went the devil out of the man and entered into the swine. And the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and were choked. When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled. and went and told it unto the city in the country. Then they went out to see what was done, and came to Jesus and found a man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed in his right mind. The devils were cast out, he came to Jesus, and now the Bible said he was clothed, no longer naked, and in his right what?
[Jay]
Mine.
[MCG]
Mine. Why wasn’t Lindsay Clans in her right mind? Why wasn’t Jeffrey Dummer in his right mind? I believe it was demon possession and the list goes on and on. Name the person, name the violent crime, name the psychosis, and I believe that unclean spirit could be the issue there. Ken, is it true in all cases? Maybe not. But I believe that majority of the cases, that’s the truth. But we have moved away from this in society because we put them in institution. We have. God out of society and we think that these things doesn’t exist.
[Jay]
Right. The word of God doesn’t apply anymore. So this is just a fable. It’s just a religious jabber. It’s not real. And so the best way we handle it now is institutionalize.
[MCG]
And he is a kicker. They found him in his right mind. The Bible said they were afraid.
[Jay]
Well, they should have been afraid of him when he was not in his right mind. They weren’t. But when he’s in his right mind, oh, now they’re afraid.
[MCG]
They also withsaw it, told them what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed. Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart. So now they’re telling Jesus, hey, leave. They’re asking Jesus to leave. they which were taken with great fear and he went up into the ship and returned back again and now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him but Jesus sent him away saying return to thine own house and show how great things God has done unto thee and he went his way and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus has done for him this guy became a disciple this guy became a witness a powerful witness for Jesus Christ what he has done I have a few more here Acts 16 16 to 18 this the Bible says yeah and it came to pass as we went to prayer a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us which brought her masters much gain by suit saying we have all these cute things on Disney now anyways the same followed Paul and us and cried saying she was possessed with a devil she was in public shouting these men are servants of the most high God which show unto us the way of salvation And this did she many days, but Paul being grieved, turneth into the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus to come out of her, and he came out at the same hour. Of course, we can talk about when my memory is slipping me here, but. when their brothers, I think, went in and tried to cast out the devil and they say, Paul, I know, Jesus, I know, but who are he? The Bible is filled with these people doing crazy stuff, what we call crazy today, and telling us that it is demon possession. So how should we, as Christians, say, God also about it look into this Ephesians 6 verse 11 and 12 but put on the whole arm of God to be able to stand against the walls of the devil for we wrassle not against flesh and blood but against principalities against powers against the rulers of darkness of this world against spiritual weakness in high places I am convinced and if I’m wrong again remove barriers.net contact us, contact at removalsbuyers.net. You can find all our social media stuff there. Let me know that I’m wrong, but I’m convinced you’re going to have to work very hard because I was convinced that many of these things that we are seeing, these mental health academic that we are going through today, a lot of it, if not all of it, or at least 98% of it or more is probably demon possession. because we have opened our lives and our heart to this nonsense, to our entertainment, to the drugs that we’re taking, through all these psychedelic things that they’re prescribing to us.
[Jay]
The people that we listen to and allow to influence us as well.
[MCG]
I’m convinced. But anyways, I am leaving a civil of percentage that I might be wrong, but my analysis of the Lindsay Kantick stuff, yes, she probably was mental. I’ll give you that. She She probably was. She probably did hear her voice, but I do believe that voice was demon possession. Anyways.
[Jay]
Romans 12 tells us that we are to not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may be able to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Psalm 119 tells us in so many different ways that the word of God is that thing that will keep us from buying into this delusion and believing the lie. Blessed are the undefiled in the way who walk in the law of the Lord. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity. They walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes. Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect unto all thy commandments. I will praise thee with uprightness of heart when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments. I will keep thy statutes. O forsake me not utterly. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought thee. O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord, teach me thy statutes. Over and over again in this Psalm, David is telling us about the effect of the Word of God on our hearts, on our thought processes, on our actions. When we pursue the Word of God with our whole hearts, when we memorize it and hide it in our hearts, when we take it to heart and we obey it and we live it out and we seek His judgments, God promises, it’s a promise in the Word of God, that the psychosis, if you will, no pun intended, the delusion that the rest of the world is under, that somehow we can walk away from God’s Word and not be affected, we will not buy into that. We will not see that as true. And many Christians that I’ve spoken to have bought the lie that somehow the world’s idea of how to treat mental illness is the way to go. And I am concerned that more Christians don’t have your perspective, MCG, that spiritual warfare is real, that demonic activity is real, and a lot of what we’re seeing is not merely a mental health issue, it’s demonic activity. But I think that if we get back to the Word of God, we’ll be able to see these things a lot more clearly and may even be able to deal with them biblically the way that God would have us deal with them.
[MCG]
Yeah. And you know, I was at the door once so winning and there was this young lady that was basically kicked out of a church because she had mental health issues and I guess she had act up one too many times and she claimed she was saved and stuff like that. And usually I probably would not say this at the door because it may not be the right place to do, but somehow I actually got in and tell her what I really think about many of the mental issues and stuff like that. And she was upset with me. And, you know, if I had to do it over what I had explained it or bring it up that way, that might not be the place to explain it. But I’m convinced that a lot of these are definitely mental, yes, but spiritual and spiritual meaning demon possession. But let’s get into this. Do you think there should be another trial?
[Jay]
I have a mixed answer to this. One part of me says, yes, absolutely. She should not be freed. She should be tried again. But the other part of me will say, how in the world can we find 12 sane people, people who are not afraid to stand 10 toes down on truth, to try this lady again? Particularly in Massachusetts. I am under the understanding that it has to happen in Massachusetts, right? How are we going to find 12 people, sane people, to try this again, especially after what we’ve seen, what they did to the one juror who decided to vote not guilty? He was attacked maliciously, death threats, smeared, doxxed, you name it. And we see how the other jurors behaved after the trial. How can we find 12 people to do the right? I hate to sound pessimistic, but I don’t believe that we’ll be able to find 12 that would be sane enough to try the case again or to hear the case again.
[MCG]
Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it’s going to be virtually impossible to find 12 sane people in Massachusetts. I think that, hey, if there are 12 people in Massachusetts that are reasonable and will convict Lindsay Clancy, they already had one in there. he can’t be on there again. So he’s just going to be another hang jewel, 11 to 1 in the opposite direction. So yes, should she be child again? I guess, yes.
[Jay]
Absolutely.
[MCG]
Better question is, will they be successful? No. And because of that, at this point, it’s too political. It’s politically motivated. You’re going to have expert witness on both sides that show clear evidence that mentally she wasn’t there. They’re going to be show other expert that showed that she did know what she was doing and stuff like that. As we mentioned earlier, even her former in-laws are on her side, the grandparents on her side, even her ex-husband seemed to be on her side. So the way I’m looking at this right now is that it’s going to be an uphill battle and finding 12 reasonable people to look at all the evidence and say that if that’s the standard we’re looking at, I don’t think she’s going to ever be convicted. So unfortunately, It might be best that they don’t waste taxpayer money and maybe drop the case a little walk. I don’t know. It’s heartbreaking to say that because I think that the children need some sort of justice. But what can I say at this point? Even Patrick Clancy said that he forgive her. I have a clip of it, but I’m not even going to play it because it’s not important at this point. Right. But yeah, I don’t think that it makes sense. We try in this case in the light that I don’t think they’re going to win. So let’s end with this. I’m going to shoot it over to you because I guess you’re the token woman on this podcast. As a mom, and I’m speaking purely as a mom, what is your heart on this matter?
[Jay]
My heart in this matter is for the children that they receive justice for the death that they suffered at the hands of their mother. I said it multiple times in this podcast already. I could care less whether she was in psychosis or not. She killed those children. She must be brought to justice. And I would pray that we as a people, yes, would have mercy and compassion for those of us that struggle with actual mental illness, which I don’t think is the case in this particular case, but at the same time, that we would realize that life is precious to God and we shouldn’t be so flippant with it. As a woman, I’m concerned about the trajectory that I see women going in this country today. There’s a complete disregard for life inside the womb and outside of the womb. There’s a complete disregard for the word of God to the point where we’re calling good evil and evil good. I’m concerned that The women that are raising the children, keeping the homes, if we’ve lost our minds and if we are in a Romans 1 state before the Lord, then there’s no way that our world, our homes, our world, our society can be well. And I just pray that this would be an opportunity for women to understand that for many, many, many, many, many years we’ve been lied to both inside and outside of the church, we’ve been lied to about who women are, what we feel like we deserve, and whatever so-called rights that some people are fighting for. I think we need to take things and look at them from a biblical point of view again, because I think we’ve gotten away from that. And I think that it’s been a terrible, just astronomically, horrendously terrible result. in our lives and in the life of our nation. I would pray that we would repent and turn to the Lord and submit to what he’s revealed in his word, that we might be healed, that the times of refreshing might come, that we would be healed of our collective psychosis, if you will, our collective delusion. May the Lord bring repentance to us today by reading his word, trusting it, obeying it, teaching it, and holding everyone else up to the standard of his word. That’s my heart and my prayer for this situation and for our nation.
[Jay]
Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate us everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Stitcher. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.
[MCG]
Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us, to support this podcast, or to learn more about removing barriers, go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the Removing Barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.
