- 1 week ago
Philosopher Stefan Molyneux gives his thoughts on the potential verdict on the Lindsay Clancy case. He discusses the Massachusetts law as it applies to criminal responsibility. He walks through the evidence on both sides and discusses objective versus subjective standards in law.
0:00:00 Trial and Responsibility
0:01:40 Massachusetts Burden Shift
0:07:39 Evidence on Both Sides
0:10:53 The Epistemology of Guilt
0:13:27 Why the Standard Feels Wrong
0:18:47 The Problem of Subjectivity
0:22:43 Conscience and Defective Brains
0:28:37 Tyranny of Vague Laws
0:31:45 Seizures and Voices
0:36:41 Why She May Walk Free
JOIN ME IN NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 12! https://wordwardebate.com/
Use code STEFAN for 10% off!
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026
0:00:00 Trial and Responsibility
0:01:40 Massachusetts Burden Shift
0:07:39 Evidence on Both Sides
0:10:53 The Epistemology of Guilt
0:13:27 Why the Standard Feels Wrong
0:18:47 The Problem of Subjectivity
0:22:43 Conscience and Defective Brains
0:28:37 Tyranny of Vague Laws
0:31:45 Seizures and Voices
0:36:41 Why She May Walk Free
JOIN ME IN NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 12! https://wordwardebate.com/
Use code STEFAN for 10% off!
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/FREEDOMAIN2026
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00All right, all right, all right.
00:01Hello, hello, everybody.
00:03Hope you're doing well.
00:04Stephen Mullen, even for your main.
00:05Thanks to Scott Adams School,
00:08which you can find on YouTube and other places,
00:09for having me on this morning.
00:11And I had a little bit of time
00:14and wanted to talk about a couple of things.
00:15But if there's things that you want to talk about,
00:18questions, comments, issues, challenges, problems,
00:20criticisms, whatever is on your mind,
00:22I'm certainly happy to hear
00:24and provide what value I can.
00:27Again, but I guess I'm a little bit agog as a whole.
00:34Just a little bit agog.
00:36And I'll sort of tell you why.
00:38So I watched, after I was on the Scott Adams show this morning,
00:44I watched the instructions that the judge gave to the jury
00:48in the Lindsay Clancy case,
00:50because the trial is all wrapped up
00:51and I guess they're just going to head off to their jury land
00:54and try to come to some kind of conclusion.
00:58And it's pretty wild.
01:01You know, if you want to be crazy
01:04or if you're going to be crazy,
01:06I'll tell you, man, Massachusetts is where you want to do it.
01:12So in most places,
01:14and again, none of this is legal advice,
01:16just my opinion.
01:17I'm not a lawyer, blah, blah, blah, amateur hour.
01:19But in most places,
01:21if you're going to pull an insanity defense,
01:23you have to prove that you were insane.
01:27Nope, that's not really how it works in Massachusetts,
01:30which is a pretty wild thing.
01:33And sorry, let me not give you my opinions before the facts.
01:36That's not necessarily the best way to approach it.
01:39So sorry about that.
01:41So in Massachusetts,
01:43the law system does not make Lindsay Clancy
01:46have to prove that she was insane.
01:48Once the defense put on reasonable evidence of a mental disease or defect,
01:54it is the prosecution,
01:56it is the state that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
02:00that she was still criminally responsible when she killed her three children.
02:03I mean, this is the opposite, right?
02:05If you say,
02:07I was crazy and I wasn't responsible for my criminal action,
02:10which makes it not a criminal action,
02:12then you have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
02:14But once a mental defect or disease
02:19is claimed and established,
02:22then it is the state
02:24that has to prove,
02:26it's the prosecution that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
02:29that she was still criminally responsible.
02:32So, of course,
02:35this is in Plymouth Superior Court.
02:37And of course,
02:37Lindsay Clancy does not contest that she strangled her children
02:41and then jumped out of a window.
02:44The issue is criminal responsibility.
02:48So closing arguments and jury instructions were given this morning.
02:52Now, Massachusetts does not use the word insanity as the legal term.
02:56The defense is lack of criminal responsibility.
02:59This is from Commonwealth v. McHoul,
03:01H-O-U-L,
03:031967.
03:05In Massachusetts,
03:06a person is not criminally responsible
03:07if at the time of the act
03:09she had a mental disease or defect,
03:11a legal phrase,
03:12not a DSM diagnosis.
03:13And because of that condition,
03:15she lacked substantial capacity
03:17either to appreciate the criminality
03:19or wrongdoing of what she was doing
03:21or to conform her conduct to the law.
03:24Either, right?
03:26Now, appreciate in this context
03:28means more than a bare intellectual knowledge.
03:30The instruction requires a meaningful grasp
03:32of the legal or moral significance of the act.
03:35And Judge William Sullivan
03:37read that standard to the jury this morning
03:39and told them,
03:40Lindsay Clancy has no burden to prove
03:42lack of criminal responsibility.
03:45It is up to the state to prove
03:47that she had criminal responsibility
03:50beyond a reasonable doubt.
03:51So, there are two standards
03:53in most common law systems.
03:56One is a civil standard,
03:57which is preponderance of evidence,
04:00like more than 50% likely.
04:03Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
04:04is like 95, 97, 99% likely or reasonable.
04:10And, of course,
04:11if you follow the OJ trial
04:13from way back in the day,
04:16then OJ was found not criminally liable
04:19and then he was sued
04:20and found liable there.
04:22The burden of proof is lower.
04:25The highest standard of proof
04:28is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
04:30Now, in general,
04:32we say, well, why isn't it 100%?
04:34Well, because if it's 100%,
04:36really, there's not a trial.
04:37I mean, why would there be a trial?
04:39Like, if they've got you on video
04:41and you have no alibi
04:42and your fingerprints and the blood
04:43and smoking gun and witnesses,
04:45then your lawyer will say,
04:47look, there's no, I mean,
04:48you're just going to get convicted.
04:49And then, so they'll offer a plea deal.
04:52So, proof beyond a reasonable doubt
04:54is something, I think, again,
04:56just sort of logically, not legally,
04:57that kicks in when somebody is claiming
05:00to not be responsible or to be innocent.
05:03And then it's a very high burden of proof.
05:05And if it's 100%, usually there's not a trial.
05:08So, that's not such a big deal.
05:11So, so the defense.
05:13So, Lindsay Clancy only had to introduce
05:17some evidence that,
05:19if you view it in the light most favorable to her,
05:21could have a reasonable jury
05:23with a reasonable doubt about,
05:25could leave a reasonable juror
05:27with a reasonable doubt
05:28about criminal responsibility.
05:30So, I mean, this is, of course,
05:32the expert testimony
05:33that I was talking about
05:33at the show last night,
05:34medical records,
05:36the fact that she said
05:37that she experienced this,
05:38Lindsay,
05:39this command hallucination,
05:42and, you know,
05:43the fact that she was treated
05:45met that threshold,
05:46I would assume,
05:47pretty easily.
05:49So, of course,
05:51if you're going to say,
05:52look, I have a mental disease
05:55or a defect,
05:57and you've never seen
05:58a mental health provider,
05:59and you've never been diagnosed,
06:00and you've never seen a psychologist
06:02or a psychiatrist,
06:02or never complained to your doctor
06:04about any problems,
06:05then that would be a tougher thing.
06:07But because, of course,
06:08she did, in fact,
06:10she was able to produce
06:11all of these issues
06:13that were going on.
06:15So, it seems to me
06:17that that threshold
06:20has been crossed, right?
06:23The burden has been surmounted.
06:25So, once that evidence
06:27is in, right,
06:28that she had
06:30some sort of mental disease
06:32or a defect,
06:32and it seems that burden
06:34has been passed
06:34based upon her mental health history.
06:36So, once that evidence
06:37comes in,
06:38the prosecution
06:39has to prove
06:40beyond a reasonable doubt
06:43that she did not have
06:44a mental disease
06:44or defect at the time,
06:46or, if she did,
06:47she still had
06:47a substantial capacity
06:49both to appreciate
06:50wrongfulness and criminality
06:52and to conform her conduct
06:54to the law.
06:56So, they can't lean
06:57on a presumption of sanity
06:59and you have to prove
07:00that you're crazy.
07:01So, the sort of prior
07:031967 case
07:05held that the old idea
07:06that most people are saying
07:07is only a common sense inference
07:08and standing alone
07:09cannot carry proof
07:10beyond a reasonable doubt.
07:12They can use planning,
07:13timing, words,
07:14concealment, motive,
07:15and expert opinions.
07:16They don't have to call in
07:18an expert, of course,
07:18in this trial they did.
07:20So, that's unusual.
07:21In most states
07:22and in federal court,
07:23the defendant must prove
07:24insanity,
07:25usually by a preponderance
07:26of the evidence,
07:27sort of 51 plus percent.
07:30Massachusetts puts the
07:31almost infinitely heavier
07:32burden
07:34to prove sanity
07:36on the state.
07:38So,
07:39so the common,
07:41commonwealth
07:42case-in-chief said,
07:43of course,
07:43well, there were the killings,
07:44there's the timeline,
07:45the phone and watch data,
07:46the 911 call,
07:48the husband sending her,
07:49sorry,
07:49the husband being sent
07:51on a longer errand,
07:52search history,
07:52medications,
07:53and so on,
07:53to say that this was planned
07:54and appreciated and understood
07:55and this and that and the other,
07:56right?
07:57The defense case said,
07:59look, she's got a treatment history
08:00for mental illness,
08:01postpartum symptoms,
08:02command voice account,
08:03the experts saying
08:05bipolar disorder
08:06with postpartum psychosis
08:07left without appreciation
08:08of wrongfulness
08:08and without the ability
08:09to stop herself.
08:11And then, of course,
08:12the prosecution rebutted
08:13with forensic experts
08:15saying she was severely ill,
08:16maybe she had depression
08:17and or bipolar too,
08:19but still knew right from wrong
08:20and could control her actions.
08:22They point to the short window
08:24while her husband was out,
08:25preparatory steps,
08:26and skepticism
08:27that a first-time command
08:28hallucination lasted
08:29only the minutes
08:30of the killings.
08:32So,
08:33there seems to be
08:34a general agreement
08:35that she was both mentally ill
08:36and kind of a devoted mother.
08:38The fight in this case
08:40is whether the illness
08:41met the legal test
08:42at the exact moment
08:43of the acts.
08:44So, even if she had
08:46some sort of diagnosis
08:47of postpartum psychosis,
08:49that's not automatically
08:50lack of criminal responsibility.
08:52And planning
08:53to kill your kids
08:54and executing on that plan
08:56is not automatically
08:57criminal responsibility.
08:58There's this two-pronged test
09:00to the whole thing.
09:02The judge,
09:03in his instructions
09:04to the jury,
09:04I guess the final instructions
09:05to the jury,
09:06left open lesser charges,
09:08second-degree murder,
09:09manslaughter,
09:10and so on.
09:11He declined
09:12a requested instruction
09:13that would have treated
09:13her prescribed medications
09:14as involuntary intoxication
09:16in the criminal
09:17responsibility charges.
09:19I mean,
09:20I would assume,
09:20again,
09:21I'm not a lawyer,
09:21but I would assume
09:22what that means
09:22is that if somebody
09:23doses you with LSD
09:25and you think
09:26someone's a demon
09:27who's trying to kill you
09:28and you attack them,
09:28then you would have
09:29an advance called
09:30involuntary intoxication.
09:31If you take the LSD yourself,
09:33you're responsible
09:33but if you're dosed
09:34or something like that.
09:35Now,
09:36if the jury
09:37finds lack
09:38of criminal responsibility,
09:40I mean,
09:41that doesn't mean
09:41it's a walkout,
09:42it's a special
09:44verdict,
09:45not guilty
09:45by reason of lack
09:46of criminal responsibility,
09:47then the court
09:48starts civil commitment
09:49to a secure
09:50psychiatric facility,
09:51maybe she'll get
09:52released later,
09:53maybe not,
09:53depends on periodic
09:54findings
09:55and examinations
09:56that she is no longer
09:57mentally ill and dangerous.
09:59So Andrea Yates,
10:00who is another woman
10:01who killed her kids,
10:02often compared to this case,
10:03was found
10:04in GRI on retrial
10:06and remains
10:06confined.
10:08If the jury
10:09finds her criminally
10:09responsible
10:10on first-degree murder,
10:11Massachusetts imposes
10:13life without parole.
10:15So there's a lot
10:16of commentators
10:17who are saying
10:17that the legal standard
10:18favors Clancy
10:19on paper
10:19and still favors
10:20the commonwealth
10:20in the jury room.
10:22Insanity-type defenses
10:23fail most of the time
10:25nationwide
10:25because jurors
10:26treat them as an excuse,
10:27especially when the facts
10:28are this grim.
10:29Massachusetts'
10:30burden shift
10:31does not erase that.
10:32Prosecutors only need
10:33to win one of the two
10:34paths in the instruction.
10:35No qualifying disease
10:37or defect
10:37or remaining capacity
10:38on both the cognitive
10:39and volitional prongs.
10:41Defense experts say
10:43she had neither capacity.
10:44Prosecution experts
10:45say she had both.
10:47That is now
10:48for the 12
10:51deliberating
10:52jurors.
10:54Now,
10:54this is all
10:55very interesting
10:56to me.
10:57I mean,
10:57it's an epistemological
10:59question.
11:00Epistemology
11:01is sort of the
11:02study of
11:03how we know
11:04things are true
11:06and how we know
11:07things are false
11:07or at least
11:08how we have
11:08reason to believe
11:09things are true
11:10versus reasons
11:10to believe
11:11things are false.
11:12So,
11:13if we take
11:14the simplest
11:15example that I can
11:16think of,
11:17again,
11:17not as a legal expert,
11:18but if we take
11:18the simplest example
11:19that would go
11:19something like this.
11:21Lindsay Clancy
11:22or some woman
11:23did something terrible,
11:25committed these
11:25horrible crimes,
11:26but it turns out
11:28that she has
11:29a giant brain tumor
11:30that is eating up
11:31her neofrontal cortex
11:33and she was
11:35showing signs
11:36of massive
11:37erratic behavior,
11:38instability,
11:39lack of emotional
11:40control,
11:40random,
11:41this,
11:41that,
11:41and the other
11:42going on
11:42and then for some
11:43reason she was
11:44not diagnosed
11:45with her brain tumor
11:46but then,
11:47you know,
11:48they give her a brain
11:48scan after she did
11:50these terrible things
11:50and there's this big
11:51giant brain tumor
11:52that's eating up
11:53her neofrontal cortex
11:54in particular,
11:55sort of seed of
11:56restraint and reasoning
11:57and she continues
11:57to get worse
11:58and worse and worse.
11:59I assume the brain tumor
12:00would kill her
12:01quite quickly.
12:02I think,
12:03you know,
12:03from a,
12:04again,
12:04not a legal
12:05but from a moral
12:05philosophical standpoint,
12:07we would say
12:07this was a horrible tragedy.
12:10Maybe we could get upset
12:11at the doctors
12:12for not diagnosing
12:14her correctly
12:14but this is a horrible tragedy
12:17and really,
12:17it was the tumor
12:19and since the tumor
12:20is going to die with her,
12:21there's no point
12:21putting the tumor
12:22in jail,
12:22so to speak.
12:23So that is
12:25how I think
12:26morally
12:28this would occur
12:30or,
12:31you know,
12:32we've heard this
12:33in the sort of
12:34NFL things,
12:36right,
12:36the NFL,
12:36like some NFL
12:37player from years
12:39back,
12:40you know,
12:41does something horrible
12:41and violent
12:42and destructive
12:43and brutal
12:43and then they do
12:44a brain scan
12:45and they find
12:45that he's had,
12:47you know,
12:47massive amounts
12:47of damage
12:48to his brain
12:49because of the
12:49repeated blows
12:50to the head
12:50as part of his career
12:52and those
12:53are sort of,
12:54those are brain defects,
12:55the sort of physical
12:56defects,
12:57if that makes sense.
12:59So,
13:00the problem
13:01is
13:02that
13:04this is all
13:06very
13:07goopy
13:08and subjective.
13:09Of course,
13:09you can see
13:10brain damage
13:11to an NFL player
13:12based upon
13:13repeated concussions,
13:13you can see that
13:14in a brain scan,
13:15you can see,
13:16or even in an autopsy
13:18afterwards,
13:18I suppose,
13:18I'm not sure
13:19how well you can
13:19see it in a brain scan,
13:20you can certainly
13:20see it afterwards,
13:21but,
13:22I mean,
13:22you can see a tumor
13:23and you can
13:25see the extent
13:26of its damage
13:26and so on,
13:27right?
13:28So,
13:29here's the problem,
13:30right?
13:31This is so
13:34subjective
13:35and
13:35I know like it.
13:37I really don't like it
13:38and particularly
13:39in cases of law
13:40when there's a bunch
13:41of subjective stuff.
13:43So,
13:44in Massachusetts,
13:45it's a legal test,
13:47not a medical one.
13:48So,
13:48if they say
13:49mental disease
13:49or defect,
13:50that doesn't have
13:51to match
13:51any kind
13:52of DSM diagnosis.
13:54So,
13:54can she appreciate
13:55what she's doing
13:56as wrong?
13:56That's not the same
13:57as knowing it.
13:59Substantial capacity
14:00to know,
14:01that's not a number.
14:02Like,
14:02how can you possibly
14:04figure that out?
14:06I mean,
14:07someone can be
14:07severely depressed,
14:08over-medicated,
14:09sleepless and suicidal
14:10and still be
14:10criminally responsible.
14:11On the other hand,
14:12a person could,
14:13I guess,
14:13plan,
14:14send her husband out,
14:16strangle three children
14:16in sequence
14:17and still lack
14:18criminal responsibility
14:18if the jury finds
14:20she was a puppet
14:20or subject
14:22to some sort
14:23of command hallucination
14:24or something like that.
14:25The statute,
14:26of course,
14:27does not tell
14:27the jury
14:28which facts
14:29lead to which result.
14:31And,
14:32of course,
14:33I mean,
14:33the DSM
14:34has a fair degree
14:35of subjectivity
14:36to it,
14:36in my opinion,
14:37because clinicians
14:37can argue
14:38about bipolar 2
14:39versus major depressive
14:40versus postpartum
14:41surcasis
14:41versus medication effects
14:43and so on.
14:44The law only asks,
14:46like at the moment
14:47of the crime,
14:48and this is more
14:49than a moment,
14:49this was three crimes
14:50in a row,
14:52did some sort
14:53of defect
14:53in her mind
14:54rob her
14:55of a meaningful
14:56grasp of wrongfulness
14:57or the ability
14:58to stop?
14:59The diagnosis
15:00may be evidence,
15:01it's not the verdict.
15:03The other thing,
15:03too,
15:04is that you're going
15:04to rely on defense experts,
15:05but the defense experts
15:06are not dealing
15:07with anything
15:07objective and factual
15:09at all,
15:10in my view.
15:12So the defense experts
15:13say,
15:14oh,
15:15Lindsay had no appreciation
15:16of wrongfulness
15:16and could not possibly
15:18conform her conduct
15:19to the law.
15:21Prosecution experts
15:22say,
15:22yep,
15:22she had her problems
15:23and serious ones,
15:24too,
15:24but she still knew
15:25right from wrong
15:26and acted with purpose.
15:28What possible referee
15:29could be summoned
15:30from the depths of hell
15:32to declare one side
15:33is correct
15:34and the other one
15:35is not?
15:36I mean,
15:36the jury is going
15:37to say,
15:38well,
15:38I mean,
15:38there's this demeanor,
15:40the command
15:41voice,
15:41Lindsay's story
15:42was kind of,
15:43it came and went,
15:44she planned it,
15:46she did all these
15:46Google searches,
15:47she said to her children,
15:49go to God,
15:49baby,
15:50the 18-minute window,
15:51whatever,
15:52whatever,
15:52whatever else is going on.
15:54And beyond a reasonable doubt
15:55is applied to a negative.
15:58So once the defense
15:59put on,
15:59you know,
16:00some evidence
16:00of mental defect,
16:02prosecutors have to prove
16:03that Lindsay Clancy
16:04was not lacking
16:05those capacities.
16:07Because it's not,
16:08did she do it?
16:09She's admitted.
16:09It is,
16:10are we sure
16:11her mind still worked
16:12well enough?
16:14What does that even mean?
16:15What does that even mean?
16:17Nobody knows.
16:19Really,
16:19there's no objective way
16:20to know it.
16:21And that means that
16:22whatever the jury,
16:24I'm sorry,
16:25not the jury,
16:25whatever the individual
16:26jurors
16:27happen to believe
16:29is what they're going
16:30to bring to the table.
16:31You know,
16:32if some jurors,
16:33maybe a little bit more
16:34on the female side here,
16:35postpartum psychosis,
16:36and oh,
16:37it's a medical catastrophe,
16:38it's somehow objective,
16:39she lost her reason,
16:39she lost her mind,
16:40she lost,
16:41others are going to hear,
16:42well,
16:42you know,
16:43she sent her husband away,
16:44she did the Google searches,
16:45she lied about some stuff,
16:47she killed the children
16:48in sequence,
16:51and all of that.
16:52And it's like,
16:53well,
16:53that's,
16:54that's responsibility.
16:56I mean,
16:57the judge's instructions
16:58generally refer to,
17:00you know,
17:00don't make your decision
17:01based either on sympathy
17:02or on horror.
17:04But,
17:05it's impossible to avoid,
17:08I think.
17:09Women generally tend towards
17:10sympathy,
17:12and men tend towards
17:13more horror
17:15and punishment.
17:17Ah.
17:18So,
17:19production of evidence
17:20for mental defects
17:21by the defense,
17:22persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt
17:23by the commonwealth,
17:24by the prosecution,
17:25on these two legal prongs.
17:27The content
17:28is almost entirely
17:29judgment.
17:31What was
17:32Lindsay Clancy's
17:33interstate
17:34for just a few minutes
17:35in January 2023
17:38reconstructed from
17:38records,
17:39experts,
17:40and conduct?
17:42And this is why,
17:44ideally,
17:45two people should be able
17:45to look at trial evidence
17:47and come to similar conclusions.
17:49You know,
17:50they may differ
17:50if it's like first degree
17:52or second degree,
17:52or I guess it's up to the judge
17:54to figure out how long
17:55the sentence is going to be,
17:58but
17:59it should not be the case
18:00that two people
18:01can look at the trial
18:03facts
18:04and come
18:06to
18:08opposite conclusions.
18:10Opposite conclusions
18:11is not innocent or guilty
18:12because,
18:12right,
18:13you know,
18:14but
18:14was she responsible?
18:16Was it criminal
18:17or was it psychiatric?
18:18It is not,
18:20in my view,
18:21a good standard
18:22to say
18:23that
18:24two people
18:25within the framework
18:27of the law
18:27can both look
18:28at the same
18:29data and evidence
18:30and come to
18:32opposite conclusions
18:33about criminal culpability.
18:35And in this framework,
18:37as far as I can tell,
18:38again,
18:38just as an outside amateur,
18:40that is
18:41entirely
18:42possible.
18:43There's way,
18:44way too much
18:45soft language.
18:46And here's another problem.
18:48Here's another problem.
18:49Well,
18:50two problems.
18:51One is that
18:52a lot of this
18:52is subjective
18:54and unprovable.
18:56So,
18:57do we believe
18:58that Lindsay Clancy
18:59heard a voice
19:00ordering her
19:01to harm her children?
19:03Do we believe that?
19:04Well,
19:06there is no reason
19:08to believe it
19:10because there's no way
19:12to prove it.
19:14Did she hear
19:15voices
19:16in January
19:17of 2023
19:20that
19:20told her
19:21to do
19:21these terrible
19:22things
19:22and then
19:23never spoke again?
19:25She'd never
19:25had them before.
19:26They just,
19:27in this,
19:28you know,
19:29couple of minutes
19:29told her
19:30to do something
19:32and,
19:32of course,
19:32as I said yesterday,
19:33didn't tell her
19:34how to do it
19:35in what sequence,
19:35in what way,
19:36but the exercise bands,
19:37which kid to go first,
19:39how to send her husband away,
19:40like that,
19:41that was all planned.
19:42None of that
19:43is accidental.
19:45Psychosis,
19:45to me,
19:46is when somebody
19:47has lost touch
19:47with reality
19:48completely.
19:49Not,
19:50they can Google search,
19:51they can plan,
19:51they can send
19:52their husband away,
19:53they can lure
19:53the kids downstairs,
19:54like that's not,
19:55to me,
19:55again,
19:56just outside
19:56amateur opinion,
19:57that's not psychosis.
19:58Psychosis is
20:00truly insane people,
20:01like,
20:01I remember
20:02when I went
20:03to visit
20:03my mother
20:04in the asylum,
20:06she was committed,
20:07as you may or may not know,
20:08when I went
20:08to visit my mother
20:09in the asylum,
20:10there were some
20:10psychotic people there
20:11and they were kind of
20:12rocking in corners,
20:13you know,
20:13batting at things
20:14that nobody else
20:15could see,
20:15having arguments
20:16with potted plants,
20:17like they were,
20:18they were gone,
20:19baby,
20:19gone.
20:19They were gone.
20:21And if you've ever
20:22talked with mental
20:23health professionals
20:24who've worked with
20:24people who are
20:25undergoing psychosis,
20:27it is a truly
20:29deranged
20:30state of mind.
20:31You can't pretend
20:32to be normal
20:33when your husband
20:34calls to
20:36throw him off
20:37the scent
20:37of potential danger,
20:39in my opinion,
20:40and from people
20:41that I've talked to.
20:44so it is
20:45almost circular
20:46in a way
20:47if we assume,
20:48and I think it's
20:49reasonable to assume,
20:50that the normal
20:51state of a mother
20:53is to not
20:56butcher
20:56and strangle
20:57her children.
20:58Like,
20:58that's the normal
20:59state of a mother,
21:01almost by definition,
21:03right?
21:03That would make sense.
21:04If the normal
21:05state of a mother
21:05is to protect
21:06her children,
21:06or at least not
21:07kill them,
21:09then,
21:10by definition,
21:11a mother
21:12who kills
21:13her children,
21:13or a father
21:14who kills
21:15his children,
21:15has a defective
21:17brain.
21:18Has a defective
21:19brain.
21:20It's sort of like
21:21if the normal
21:22operation of your
21:23body is to
21:25pump blood
21:25to your brain,
21:27if you have
21:28some stroke,
21:29like some blockage
21:30or something like
21:30that,
21:31and your brain
21:32doesn't get blood,
21:33then,
21:33by definition,
21:35you have a defect,
21:36because the normal
21:37operation is for
21:38the blood vessels
21:40to send blood
21:40to the brain,
21:41oxygen to the
21:42brain,
21:42and if that's
21:43blocked,
21:44right,
21:45then you have
21:48defective blood
21:48vessels.
21:49In the same way,
21:50of course,
21:50the normal
21:51operation of the
21:52heart is to
21:53give you a
21:53billion heartbeats
21:54over the course
21:54of your life,
21:55and if your
21:56heart stops
21:57beating,
21:58by definition,
21:58you have a
21:59defective heart.
22:01So,
22:01all catastrophic
22:04deviations from
22:06health and
22:07normal behavior
22:08are defects.
22:10So,
22:11it's not a
22:12medical diagnosis,
22:13it's not even
22:14a DSM diagnosis,
22:16it is,
22:17in fact,
22:19a self-proving
22:21hypothesis.
22:23Normal women
22:24don't kill their
22:25children.
22:25Somebody,
22:26a mother who
22:27kills her children
22:28has a defective
22:29brain.
22:30Oh,
22:31but if she has a
22:31defective brain,
22:32then she's not
22:33criminally responsible.
22:35Again,
22:35I'm just talking
22:36philosophically,
22:36not legally.
22:37I can only
22:38evaluate these
22:39things from a
22:39moral standpoint.
22:40Of course,
22:41not from a
22:42legal standpoint.
22:43I'll give you
22:44another example.
22:45There are some
22:46people who do
22:48not appear to
22:49have any
22:49measurable
22:51conscience.
22:53So,
22:53most people,
22:54if you sort of
22:56hook them up to
22:56EKGs and
22:57blood pressure
22:59monitors and
22:59heartbeat monitors
23:00and so on,
23:01and you show
23:02them a series
23:03of horrific
23:05torture images
23:06or brutal
23:07images of
23:08people being
23:10brutalized and
23:10hurt and harmed,
23:12most people,
23:13the fight or
23:14flight kicks in,
23:14they feel horror,
23:16their heart rate
23:16increases,
23:17their blood
23:18pressure may go
23:19up or whatever,
23:20like the adrenaline
23:20dumps into their
23:21system and so on,
23:22and they experience
23:24the activation
23:26of a horror-based
23:28nervous system
23:30responses.
23:31However,
23:32there are some
23:33people,
23:33you hook them up
23:34to the same
23:34thing,
23:35you show them
23:35the
23:36sequence of
23:38horrifying things
23:39being done to
23:40people in the
23:41most brutal
23:41manners we can
23:42imagine that
23:43would be legal,
23:44and they don't
23:45care.
23:46Their heart rate
23:47doesn't increase,
23:48they don't get
23:49any adrenaline,
23:50they don't have a
23:51fight-or-flight
23:51response,
23:52and there are
23:52some people who
23:53actually you can
23:54see pleasure
23:56centers light up
23:57in their brain.
23:58They enjoy it,
23:59they like it,
23:59they're sadists,
24:00right?
24:00They love watching
24:01that kind of stuff,
24:01they enjoy the
24:04images of
24:05torture.
24:06The general
24:07state of
24:08humanity,
24:09and I remember
24:10they used to
24:10show these
24:11appalling torture
24:11videos at an
24:12old nightclub I
24:13used to go to
24:13as a teenager
24:14called Nuts
24:15and Bolts,
24:15which I always
24:16found kind of
24:17odd, I
24:17understood it
24:17later.
24:19But most
24:20people, the vast
24:21majority of
24:21people, when you
24:22show them images
24:23of torture and
24:23mutilation and so
24:24on, they react
24:25with horror and
24:25disgust and fear
24:26and loathing,
24:27and so on,
24:28and then there's a
24:28small minority of
24:29people who don't
24:31really react at
24:32all and then
24:32there's a minority
24:33of people who
24:34react with
24:35happiness, joy,
24:36pleasure at
24:37watching these
24:38things.
24:38Now the
24:39standard, the
24:40standard is to
24:41react with horror
24:41when you see
24:42torture, to not
24:43care, to not
24:44react, or to
24:45react with
24:46pleasure would
24:47be, according to
24:48the normal
24:48standards of the
24:49human mind, a
24:50defective brain.
24:52A defective
24:52brain.
24:53There's
24:54something wrong.
24:55You know, if you
24:56have a baby born
24:57with a congenital
24:58heart defect, it's
24:58because the heart
24:59isn't doing what
24:59the heart's supposed
25:00to be doing.
25:00It's not doing
25:01what most
25:02babies' hearts
25:03do, and if you
25:04have no conscience
25:05or you're a
25:06sadist, your
25:06brain is not
25:07doing what most
25:08people's brains
25:09do, which is to
25:10react with horror
25:11and torture rather
25:12than indifference or
25:13pleasure.
25:15So, by
25:16definition, people
25:18who commit
25:20particularly violent
25:21crimes have
25:22defective brains,
25:23so they would fall
25:24into this category.
25:25So then, wouldn't
25:26it be the case,
25:27logically, again,
25:28not legally, but
25:28logically, would
25:29it be the case
25:29that every
25:31single person
25:31who committed
25:32a crime, it
25:33would be a
25:34burden on the
25:36prosecution to
25:36prove that they
25:37were responsible,
25:41substantially
25:42responsible for
25:43knowing that it
25:44was wrong and
25:45being substantially
25:46unable to
25:47control their
25:48actions to
25:49conform with the
25:49law, that they
25:51were beyond
25:52self-control.
25:54I don't really
25:55know where that
25:56standard would
25:56end.
25:57I have no
25:58idea.
26:00And the
26:01other thing,
26:01of course, is
26:02that I
26:03suppose that you
26:04have to provide
26:05evidence and so
26:06on, right?
26:07So, if you
26:09want to get
26:09away with some
26:10kind of crime,
26:12if you want to
26:12get away with
26:13some kind of
26:13crime, then
26:15all you do is
26:16you, for a
26:17couple of
26:18months, I
26:19don't know what
26:19the standard
26:19would be, a
26:20couple of
26:20weeks, probably
26:20a couple of
26:21months, you
26:22complain of
26:24being unhappy,
26:25of being
26:26wound up,
26:29having racing
26:30thoughts, of
26:32being hyper and
26:33unable to
26:34concentrate, and
26:35you simply, no,
26:36you can't measure
26:37or test for any
26:38of these things, so
26:39it's all
26:39subjective, I
26:40feels, with a
26:42Z.
26:44So, again, we're
26:45talking Massachusetts,
26:45right?
26:46So, what you would
26:46do is you would
26:47simply go and
26:48see a bunch of
26:48psychologists,
26:50psychiatrists, and
26:51complain to sort of
26:51primary care
26:52physicians about,
26:53you know, this, that,
26:54of the other, and
26:56that's laying your
26:57foundation, right?
26:58It's laying your
26:58foundation for, I
27:01had a defect for
27:02which there are
27:03records, and then
27:05maybe you wouldn't
27:05take the SSRIs or
27:07something like that,
27:09and then, having
27:11established the
27:12basis for a
27:13mental defect, it's
27:14not a disease in an
27:15organic sense or in
27:17an objective medical
27:17sense, once you've
27:19laid the foundation
27:20for this defect,
27:22defect, then you
27:24go do your dark
27:25deeds, I don't
27:27know, there's some
27:28reports, I haven't
27:29looked into this in
27:29detail, there's some
27:30reports, I don't know
27:30if they're true or
27:31not, that Lindsay
27:31hung from the window
27:32rather than threw
27:33herself out of the
27:34window, so maybe
27:35she thought she'd
27:36twist an ankle or
27:36break a leg or
27:37something like that,
27:38and that would give
27:39her some plausible
27:41deniability as to
27:43being sane, but she
27:46paralyzed herself.
27:48So, that's how you
27:49would lay the
27:50foundation.
27:51And given the
27:53law, and it would
27:53be fascinating to
27:54know, and I don't
27:55know if they've
27:55looked this kind of
27:56stuff up, it would
27:56be fascinating to
27:57know if Lindsay
27:59Clancy knew any of
28:00this stuff before she
28:01did what she did.
28:03And I'm not saying
28:04about her in
28:05particular, I'm just
28:06talking about things
28:07in general, because
28:08I assume that this
28:09stuff has been gone
28:10over and over in the
28:11trial, though I
28:11didn't watch all the
28:12trials, so forgive me
28:13for my lack of
28:15detailed knowledge in
28:17these kinds of
28:17things.
28:17So, it's all very
28:20subjective.
28:21I feel unhappy,
28:23therefore you have a
28:25brain defect.
28:27And I hear voices
28:29which can't ever be
28:31proven.
28:33And it's all very
28:35subjective.
28:36And subjectivism,
28:38sorry, subjectivism in
28:39the law is randomness
28:41and tyranny in
28:41practice.
28:42This is an old
28:44Randian argument that
28:45the tyranny is not the
28:47society with brutal
28:48laws, but with
28:49subjective laws.
28:50Like if they say,
28:51we'll lock you in
28:52jail for five years
28:53for spitting on the
28:53sidewalk, if you
28:55don't spit on the
28:55sidewalk, you're
28:56pretty much okay.
28:57But if they can just
28:58go after you or not,
28:59or you can be guilty
29:00or not, or innocent
29:00or not, or not
29:02criminally liable or
29:03not, if it's all
29:04based upon subjective
29:05stuff.
29:06Law and subjectivity
29:08is tyranny, in my
29:09view.
29:10In my view, things need
29:11to be very, very
29:12clearly delineated,
29:14right?
29:14Like you see these
29:15laws where it's
29:15like, well, if you
29:16cause offense, then
29:18you're in the wrong.
29:19And it's like, who
29:19knows what offense
29:20is.
29:20People can fake being
29:21offended.
29:22They can do all
29:22kinds of stuff.
29:24All subjectivity in
29:25law ends up being
29:28tyranny in practice.
29:30So I was quite
29:32surprised that in
29:33Massachusetts, after
29:35the mental defect is
29:36established, which it
29:37seems to have been
29:38from what happened
29:39with Lindsay Clancy
29:40for the months
29:41before she murdered
29:42her children or
29:44killed her
29:44children, then it
29:46is on the
29:47prosecution to
29:48prove beyond a
29:49reasonable doubt
29:49that she was in
29:52enough control of
29:53her faculties that
29:54she's criminally
29:54liable.
29:55How on earth can
29:57you do that?
29:57Well, you can have
29:58a bunch of
29:58experts.
29:58Oh, expert says,
30:00yeah, she was.
30:01And another expert
30:01says, oh, there's
30:02no way she was.
30:03And how on earth
30:04are you supposed to
30:05come to any kind of
30:06objective or rational
30:07conclusion about
30:09that?
30:10I don't even
30:12imagine how that
30:14could possibly be
30:14the case.
30:16So I don't
30:17normally do
30:18predictions.
30:18I don't normally
30:19do predictions.
30:21And so this is all
30:22nonsense.
30:23evidence, but from
30:24my obviously
30:25amateur and
30:26non-legal opinion,
30:27not a lawyer,
30:28right?
30:29In my reading of
30:31the law, she will
30:33not be held
30:33criminally liable.
30:35I'm not saying
30:35it's right or
30:36wrong.
30:37I don't think it's
30:38right.
30:38But nonetheless, in
30:40my reading of the
30:41law, certainly
30:43she's been, she's
30:44proven and
30:45established, and
30:45there doesn't seem
30:46to be much
30:46disagreement, even
30:47from the
30:47prosecution, that she
30:49had a mental
30:49defect.
30:50this bipolar
30:512 or major
30:52depressive
30:52disorder, or
30:53again, I know
30:54that defect does
30:54not equal the
30:55DSM diagnosis, but
30:57it seems to me
30:58that she has
30:59established that
31:00she has a
31:01mental defect.
31:02can you prove
31:04beyond a reasonable
31:05doubt that she
31:08was in enough
31:09control of her
31:11mind and body
31:12to know
31:14substantially, not
31:14just kind of
31:15know, but to
31:16know, and not
31:16just, if she said,
31:17I know it's
31:18wrong, that's
31:18still not enough
31:19because it has to
31:19be substantial,
31:20whatever the hell
31:21that means.
31:22Can you prove to
31:23a 95% certainty
31:26that Lindsay
31:27Clancy, in those
31:2818 minutes, knew
31:30what she was doing
31:30was wrong?
31:31And had the
31:32ability to
31:33control her
31:34actions.
31:35Given that we
31:36have no time
31:36machine and we
31:37cannot read minds,
31:38I do not know, I
31:39do not know, I
31:40do not know how
31:42that can be
31:42established beyond a
31:43reasonable doubt.
31:45Let me give you an
31:46analogy.
31:48So, if somebody
31:49goes up and
31:50punches someone, we
31:51would consider that
31:52assault, right?
31:53I mean, morally,
31:54right?
31:54However, if somebody
31:56has a sudden
31:57epileptic attack for
31:59which they had no
32:00prior history and
32:01the arm just jerks
32:02out and smacks
32:03someone, we would
32:05say that that is
32:06not criminal
32:08responsibility, right?
32:10If someone were to
32:11claim, like somebody
32:12punches someone and
32:15then later says, I
32:17am not criminally
32:18responsible because I
32:19was not in control of
32:20my arm at the time.
32:21I had some kind of
32:23seizure, some kind of
32:24epileptic attack or
32:25something like that,
32:26right?
32:27And let's say that the
32:29person had never had
32:30that epileptic attack
32:31before or any kind of
32:32seizure before, there
32:34was no medical evidence
32:35that they had a seizure
32:35and they'd never had
32:36that seizure afterwards.
32:38Would we accept that
32:39and say, well, that
32:41person is not
32:43responsible because they
32:45had a one-time
32:46seizure and their arm
32:48was not under their
32:49control and it reached
32:50out and it smacked
32:51someone?
32:52Now, I get with the
32:53Lindsay Clancy case,
32:54there's the history of
32:54the mental health
32:56issues and so on.
32:56I'm just talking about
32:57this individual instance.
33:00If somebody says, I
33:02was not in control of
33:05my arm when it went
33:06out and smacked Joe
33:08in the face, it was
33:10some kind of seizure,
33:11some kind of attack,
33:12some kind of whatever,
33:13right?
33:15Or if somebody says, a
33:18voice in my ear
33:19commanded me to smack
33:20Joe in the face,
33:21otherwise the world
33:22would end.
33:23So I smacked him in
33:24the face and then I
33:25was like, oh, geez, I
33:27shouldn't have listened
33:28to that voice.
33:29That was really bad.
33:31And so on.
33:32Would we say, well,
33:36then that's fine.
33:37It's not assault because
33:39you had a one-time
33:40seizure that never
33:41occurred or you heard a
33:43voice that told you to
33:44do something that only
33:44came right before you
33:46hit Bob and then never
33:48came back again.
33:49I think we can all
33:51appreciate and understand
33:52that you cannot run a
33:53legal system, at least
33:54a rational legal system
33:55on such a basis
33:57because there's nothing
33:58provable.
33:59I heard voices cannot
34:01be proven.
34:02If we're going to
34:03accept the excuse of a
34:06sudden onset, never to
34:07be repeated, epileptic
34:09attack that caused the
34:10arm to reach out and
34:10smack.
34:11And let's say it wasn't
34:12even just a jerk, like
34:13it was a punch, like the
34:14fist closed, right?
34:15You kept your thumb
34:16outside rather than
34:17inside so it doesn't
34:17break, right?
34:19We'd say, well, but you
34:20punched him, you know.
34:21But that was part of
34:22the seizure, man.
34:23That was part of the
34:23epileptic attack.
34:24My fingers curled in and
34:25just punched him.
34:27Because these are all
34:28subjective states that
34:29can't ever be proven.
34:31And that which is
34:32asserted without evidence
34:34can be dismissed without
34:36evidence.
34:38That which is asserted
34:39without evidence can be
34:39dismissed without
34:40evidence.
34:42I have an invisible
34:44spider on my forehead
34:45that's three feet wide
34:47but can't be detected
34:47in any way whatsoever.
34:48Is that like, well,
34:49maybe.
34:50It's like, no.
34:51No, you don't.
34:52You're not showing any
34:53evidence that you have
34:54an incorporeal spider that
34:56can't be detected by any
34:57means.
34:58So you're just making an
34:59assertion without any
35:00evidence.
35:01And therefore, it can be
35:02dismissed.
35:03It doesn't sit in the
35:04maybe pile.
35:05You know, if somebody
35:06comes into an insane
35:07asylum and says, I'm
35:09Napoleon or Socrates or
35:10Jesus or something like
35:11that, do we say, well,
35:14maybe, you know, maybe
35:15space aliens resurrected
35:18Napoleon, kept him alive
35:19through some crazy
35:20technology, blah, blah,
35:20blah, blah, blah, blah.
35:21No.
35:22That which is asserted
35:23without evidence, I'm
35:24Napoleon, can be dismissed
35:25without evidence.
35:26No, you're not.
35:28And I don't really know.
35:30And, you know, these kinds
35:31of trials are really
35:32fascinating to see how the
35:35law works.
35:37But I don't know how long
35:39the jury is going to be
35:40deliberating for.
35:41And it is really just
35:42deliberating based on your
35:43feelings and subjectivity
35:45and which expert do you
35:47believe.
35:47And the experts can't
35:49prove anything.
35:50Right.
35:50If the expert comes in and
35:51says his DNA and
35:53fingerprints were on the
35:55gun, right, the gun that
35:56was used to commit the
35:57murder, his DNA and
35:58fingerprints were on the
35:58gun.
35:59OK, there's an expert,
36:01right?
36:01Now they can get rebuttal
36:02written experts and say,
36:03well, you know, the DNA,
36:04he's got a twin or whatever
36:06it is, right?
36:07The fingerprints were
36:08smudged and what
36:08certainty do you have
36:09and we've got another.
36:10So they're dealing with
36:12objective facts.
36:13But experts who come in
36:15and try to read the mind
36:16of a woman from January
36:182023 and try to tell you
36:23whether she was responsible
36:25for her actions or not.
36:26Well, it's like that old
36:28Scott Adams thing where it's
36:29like next week a doctor
36:30with a salesman with a
36:31flashlight, a doctor with a
36:33flashlight shows you where
36:34sales projections come from.
36:35Right.
36:36Although at least sales
36:37projections have usually some
36:38prior momentum to them.
36:40But that is the true reality
36:43of the situation.
36:44According to the law, and
36:46again, it's just my moral
36:47opinion, just a philosophical
36:48opinion in no way, shape, or
36:49form a legal opinion.
36:50But according to the law, as I
36:53have read it, there is no way
36:57to prove beyond a reasonable
36:59doubt, 95% certainty, that
37:03Lindsay Clancy's state of mind in
37:04January 2023 included substantial
37:09knowledge that what she was doing
37:10was wrong and against the law and
37:12that she had substantial control
37:14over her behavior.
37:15How could you possibly, possibly,
37:18possibly, possibly, possibly,
37:19possibly, possibly know?
37:21And of course, the experts hired by
37:23the prosecution say, yes, she did.
37:25The experts hired by the defense
37:26say, no, she didn't.
37:27And there's no objective test or
37:28anything.
37:29It's all speculation about state of
37:32mind from long ago.
37:34Under the law, as it stands, in my
37:38amateur philosophical opinion, she
37:41can't be held criminally liable,
37:44according to the law.
37:45Morally, philosophically, that's
37:48another question which I've talked
37:49about before.
37:51But according to the law, and I can't
37:55predict the outcome of the trial.
37:56Of course, nobody can.
37:57So I can't say, you know, maybe the
37:59jury is so horrified by the murders
38:02that they're just going to believe
38:03the experts that say she was in
38:06control of herself, knew that what
38:07she was doing was wrong, and had
38:09substantial knowledge of acting
38:11against the law.
38:12Again, whatever that really means,
38:13no way to know.
38:16But maybe the jurors just are so
38:19horrified that they believe what the
38:22prosecution experts say, and maybe
38:24they're so sympathetic towards her that
38:26they believe what the defense experts
38:28say.
38:29But it is in any way the wind blows
38:31situation.
38:31So I cannot, of course, tell.
38:33Nobody can.
38:34But that's a problem, too.
38:36Right?
38:36That's a problem, too.
38:39If the jury says, well, we're going to
38:41abide by the facts of the case, and if
38:43there are actual facts in the case that
38:45determine criminal liability, but what
38:47are the facts in the case that determine
38:49criminal liability?
38:50In a rational legal system, in a free
38:54market legal system, the standard would
38:56be medical diagnosis.
38:59She had a tumor.
39:01You know, we did a brain scan, and some
39:04of her brain is not functioning properly.
39:05She was dropped on her head as a baby.
39:07Like, whatever.
39:08Whatever.
39:09Somebody had been pouring mercury into
39:11her ear while she slept, or something
39:13like that.
39:15So there would have to be some medical
39:17facts on the ground in order to make
39:20this diagnosis.
39:21Because otherwise, you're talking about
39:23mind reading and time travel, neither of
39:25which are possible.
39:26Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt
39:29that I had a dream about an elephant
39:32last night?
39:33Nope.
39:34Nope.
39:36You can't.
39:37The insanity defense in a rational legal
39:41system would require a biological basis.
39:45Because, I mean, if you've ever seen the
39:46movie, I know this sounds like a whiplash
39:48side quest, but if you've ever seen the
39:50movie, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, which
39:52was sort of Leonardo DiCaprio's
39:54introduction to the world outside of his
39:57sitcom days as a truly substantial
39:59actor, then he played a young man with a
40:04substantially damaged or under-functioning
40:07brain.
40:08And he did an incredible job.
40:10People can fake this stuff.
40:11They can fake psychosis.
40:13They can fake depression because there's
40:15no blood test, right?
40:16I mean, you can't fake cancer because you
40:19can find it when you do a biopsy.
40:23I mean, you can't fake, like I got a bee
40:27sting last summer on my hand, swelled up, and
40:31I went to the doctor.
40:32They put this little black marker saying,
40:34well, we don't want it to go past here and
40:35put me in antibiotics and cleared it all
40:37up.
40:37But I couldn't fake that, right?
40:40If you, you can't fake a UTI because, you
40:42know, they will take a urine sample, look for
40:44bacteria, and so on.
40:46But you can fake being crazy.
40:48Actors do it all the time.
40:50It's that tropic thunder line.
40:52I never go full retard, right?
40:54People, actors do it all the time.
40:56They fake crazy.
40:57They fake psychotic.
40:57They fake addicted.
40:59They fake mentally handicapped.
41:01They fake it all the time.
41:03People can fake this kind of stuff all the
41:04time.
41:05One of the reasons we can act and human
41:08beings have the capacity to act is you can
41:09con people if you act.
41:13So there would have to be a biological
41:14basis for claims of a mental defect.
41:16If your brain scans are normal and there's
41:19no disease or dysfunction that is in any
41:22way medically objective in your brain, then
41:25you have a functioning brain.
41:27You can't just claim epilepsy for one thing
41:29in your life.
41:30If there's no brain scan, no evidence of
41:32epilepsy, it's never happened before, never
41:33happened since, then it's just not, it's not
41:36provable that you have epilepsy.
41:38And if it's not provable that you have
41:39epilepsy, then, well, of course, even if you
41:44have epilepsy, if you don't take your
41:45medication, if the medication helps, and then
41:46you reach out and punch someone because of
41:49epilepsy, you're still responsible if you don't
41:50take your medication, blah, blah, blah, right?
41:52I mean, can you imagine some guy plows into a
41:57schoolyard full of kids?
41:58He comes out dizzy, staggering, hands and knees
42:03throwing up, breath stenches like a distillery.
42:08And he says, I'm not drunk, man.
42:11I'm not drunk.
42:13Well, you take a blood test, right?
42:16So there's something objective.
42:18Because, of course, if you did plow in to a
42:20bunch of school kids, heaven help you, you
42:23would then immediately pretend to be sick.
42:27And if there was blood alcohol, high blood
42:30alcohol levels, that would be a drunk driver.
42:32If there weren't, and there was no presence
42:35of any illness, no bacteria, no fungus, no
42:38viruses, no medical diagnosis, they're just
42:40like, well, you just stuck a hand down your
42:42throat and pretended to be sick so that you
42:44would avoid responsibility.
42:47And these would, people can fake stuff.
42:49I mean, we know that, right?
42:50We know that.
42:51I mean, come on.
42:52Who hasn't had that Monday morning phone
42:55call?
42:55Oh, man.
42:56Sorry, boss.
42:58Oh, sorry.
42:59Like, I just, I feel like crap.
43:01I just, I don't think, I don't think I can come
43:03in today, man.
43:04I'm so sorry.
43:05I'll keep you posted.
43:06Like who, I mean, everyone at one time or
43:08another has faked an illness.
43:11I remember there was a TV in my boarding
43:15school and I wanted to watch TV and I pretended
43:18to have an earache.
43:19Like I pretended to have an earache so that
43:21I could go into the nurse's room, which is
43:25also nice and warm and cozy.
43:26I could go into the nurse's room and I could
43:30watch TV and chat with the nurse and not have
43:34to go to bed because I've always been a night
43:35owl and it was no good for me.
43:38So everyone's faked it.
43:40Come on.
43:41Except my wife.
43:42So we know this.
43:44So there has to be objective tests because
43:45people can fake stuff and people can lie about
43:48stuff and I think we can safely ascertain that
43:52if somebody is willing to murder their
43:54children, they're probably also willing to
43:55lie about stuff.
43:56I think in the hierarchy of values, liars
43:59versus philiciders are more common.
44:02So I just wanted to get these thoughts out.
44:05If in my view, again, amateur, idiot,
44:08philosopher, not lawyer.
44:09In my view, if the jurors follow the law,
44:13she's not criminally liable.
44:15If they don't follow the law, who knows, right?
44:16And they may be admonished by the judge if
44:19they don't follow the law.
44:21So as a whole, I would say she's going to the
44:25asylum.
44:26She ain't going to the jail.
44:28And I also would assume that in the asylum,
44:32she's going to make an enormous,
44:35miraculous, rapid recovery.
44:37We'll see.
44:38We'll see.
44:39That could be out for a couple of days or more.
44:41But those are my thoughts.
44:44All right.
44:44Well, thank you, everyone, so much.
44:45I appreciate you dropping by today.
44:47Freedomman.com slash donate.
44:49Don't forget wordwardebate.com to get your
44:51tickets for Nashville.
44:53And I will be also in Vegas in November
44:55with debates as well.
44:57And I look forward to seeing you either in
44:59Nashville or in Vegas.
45:00I'll keep you posted.
45:01Thank you so much for dropping by today.
45:04Have a beautiful, beautiful afternoon.
45:06I'll talk to you soon.
45:07Bye.
Comments