The Lindsay Clancy Case: Insanity Defense, Jury Bias & the Truth About Justice

Jack Moore: what was presented to the jury was never a question of did Lindsay Clancy actually take these exercise bands and strangle her kids? That wasn't in question. The only question is what was going on relative to her mind. Jack and Charles, more to consider. So what's in the news? I think we're in a cycle now. I say we're in a cycle. Go back a hundred years to the Lindbergh kidnapping. It was in the national news. It was every day. The news as the media's had it at the time, had as media had it at the time, going from newspapers to radio, and then eventually decades later, television. The and the OJ Simpson trial, for example, we've had tons and tons. Of events in the United States history that become that's all anybody talks about, that's all anybody looks at. That of course has happened with the Clancy with the Clancy trial, Lindsay Clancy, mother,
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: three children. Strangled the children. There and now there is the whole TikTok dynamic that's come into play. There are people, and I've run into them, that think that the father killed the children. So we're we'll get into that too, but One thing I don't see, and then what I wanted to open with here, what I don't see anybody really getting into too much is what does insanity really mean and who has to prove it. So being from Virginia and being licensed to practice law, I didn't I I know of a case that involved an office I was in where there was a plea that was pretty famous in the news of not guilty by reason of insanity. And in that one I'm talking about, the state took it. The guy had been many times put into mental institutions, was on massive amounts of drugs, wasn't taking his drugs, and he killed his mother. And I had had a case with him earlier and it involved beating up his parents. He eventually murdered his parents. And that became a very famous case too because his parents were pretty well off and he was cut out of the will. He was cut out of E and E inheritance and he sued For the inheritance, because Virginia had a statute that said, if you take place or you're the primary cause of the death of someone, you can't financially benefit from that death. So his father had already passed. When he took the life of his mother, he's, you know, he gets a lawyer that says, I want the million dollars or whatever that inheritance would have been. And now you have the problem of what was he found? In a plea agreement, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the Commonwealth of Virginia. That's why I remember this case. And he pled it and the state accepted it. Instead of going through a trial for murder, they just said, okay, we'll accept it, put him into a mental institution. Now he's saying, How was I found by the court? It's part of the plea agreement, but I was found not guilty by reason of insanity. I should be able
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: to get the money. I think it went to the Supreme Court. It went to the Court of Appeals. It went to some level of appellate jurisdiction, but I I think it even went to the Supreme Court. And they ruled, no, you still took the life of mother, even if you were found in a criminal trial, or you were found in a criminal court, not reason not guilty by reason of insanity, you still can't get the inheritance. So that actually came up in Virginia. But let's go over this real quick. It's a it's a little bit of a read, but this is from a source that I found on Massachusetts law, which is a little bit different than Probably the majority of states, not guilty by reason of insanity, what the verdict means and who must prove it. This is key. In law, you have things. In a legal case, things are brought like, well, we all accept that. let me back up and say this is probably the best way to open. When I talk criminal justice, I would always start the class with when we would get into what happens in a trial. I would do this football field analogy and I would draw the football field up. And Charles, I'll get you involved. I'll ask you this. So let's say I would use like robbery, which is the most element laden charge you can have. Because as a layman, what do you think like robbery consists of? If you're going to convict somebody of robbery, what do you have to prove?
Charles: He took something from them through force or without their permission.
Jack Moore: Pretty much right. So what you'll have is the elements will be there was a taking with an intent to deprive that person permanent thereof. You're not going to give it back later. You're not boring it. You're taking it from them. It has to be in their presence and it has to be through some for some type of force threat or intimidation. So another thing, like in Virginia, we have a larceny, petty larceny, grand larceny. There's one that says if you take five dollars of or more from the person of another, you take from another person, from their person, five dollars or more of value, it's a grand larceny. Well then you might say, well wow, if you took it from their person, sounds like something else. Why is it a grand larceny to take from a person, what type of taking would that have to be? If it's not robbery.
Charles: Through force? I don't know.
Jack Moore: It's contemplating like the pickpocket.
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: So if somebody bumps into you, you could if it's intentional, you could say it's an assault. But I mean just, you know, they they they you know, they they brush up against you. It's the pickpocket. So I kind of brush up against you and I reach in your wallet. I mean, I reach and grab your wallet out of your jacket pocket. And I'm like, excuse me, sir, I didn't mean to bump into you. Are you losing your wallet through forced threat or intimidation?
Charles: No.
Jack Moore: Right. You don't even know what happened, right? Have I lifted
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: from you potentially $5 more of value?
Charles: Yes.
Jack Moore: Right. So if I'm a prosecutor and I bring the quote unquote pickpocket into trying to use this example, every one of the elements, back to my football field analogy, starts at goal line. It starts at one goal line. Why does it start at the goal line? Because everyone is presumed innocent. There hasn't been nothing proven. So now you start adding facts. And I call you as a witness because you are the victim. you're out your wallet. Yes, sir. The wallet's gone. Have you ever seen this person before? Yes, you identify the person. Where it would fail is you're moving these elements that need to be proved up the football field towards the other end. The one that would fail is: was this taken from you through force, threat, or intimidation? Like, I wasn't even aware the guy took it. So you had it lifted. You weren't aware of it. It's not a robbery. You have to be aware of it for it to be a robbery. Then might one might ask, another example we used to use is you're in a room and you're and your computer is 20 feet from me and 20 feet from you. And then I start walking towards your computer and you're going, Excuse me, buddy, that's my computer. I'm like, it's mine now. Then you go, No, and you cut the distance, and I bring out a gun and I go, Hey, back off. Is that a robbery?
Charles: Mm y yeah.
Jack Moore: Yes. Yeah, because if I leave with a computer, I left through four things. It might have started as a simple larceny. If I just start going towards your computer to steal it, or anybody, somebody's in your house, they're stealing something, and then you walk in the door and now they pull a knife. It just became a robbery. They may have gone in with the intent to commit a commit a larceny. Then you show up and they're like, okay, for me to break with it with that from this place with that item, I'm gonna have to use four thirty because it can turn into a robbery. So you have these elements. Taking force, threat, or intimidation from the person, intent to deprive permanently. You do all those things, and then you have to move every one of these footballs, every element of it to reach this conviction across the field to some other end of the field, 100 yards, right? So then you ask the question what does a reasonable doubt mean? How many yards up the field would you say is a reasonable doubt?
Charles: fifty.
Jack Moore: That's preponderance. That's dead on preponderance. So when you have a civil trial, preponderance means when you're in a jury, if they've proven, if the plaintiff has proven something happened and the defendant has an explanation for it or whatever, if you're listening to that and you're like, you know, 5149, I believe the plaintiff. You rule in favor of the plaintiff. But somewhere between 51 and 100 in a criminal trial, You have to feel like you don't have a reasonable doubt. Now, when I was teaching this years ago, a student raised his hand, he goes, Hundred yards, buddy, get it on the other end of the field. And I'm like, What's wrong with that? And a couple of people looked at me and I said, That's beyond any doubt. The law doesn't say that you have to be a hundred percent sure. So this is the key
Charles: Excuse me.
Jack Moore: point. In a case of beyond a reasonable doubt, and many states used to use the language that that The elements of the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, which says that what it means is if you were going to convict someone and they're going to get life, the chair, something like that, what could you live with? Look in the mirror, brushing your teeth the next day, and live with, you know, maybe I shouldn't have convicted that guy. Or like, where are you feeling comfortable with conviction of this person? You are morally convinced enough. So if you ask enough people, they'll probably say, I don't know, 85, 90, 85, 90 yards across the football field. But they gotta land somewhere. The state has the burden of proving
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: every element from goal line to however far they get it. But again, you might be in that 65%. You're like, I'm 65% convinced. I'm just using numbers. There's no objective reality or truth to this. But I could go, you know, about 90 per I'm about 90. I'll go with the conviction. I'm about 65. I'm not so sure. What do you got? You got a 35% doubt, just using this as kind of an illustration. Nobody can actually put precise terms on it. But what you're driven to do or what you're ordered to do in a criminal trial, if you are a jury member, is if a judge says, if you
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: have a reasonable doubt, you must acquit. And a lot of times when you meet with jury members in the hallway, they'll go, Now, I think he did it. I think he did it. But that one thing didn't line up quite right for me. So I'm going to let the guy, and that's really true. I mean, that would be the right, that would be the just decision. If you're on a jury, And you're pretty damn sure the guy did it or the gal did it, but you're kind of like, but I got this gnawing doubt. Then you got to let the person go. You have to vote for acquittal because you have a doubt, but it has to be a reasonable doubt. So that's that's where it's at. So using that analogy or or using that illustration of the field, but again, it starts with a presumption of innocence. Nothing's happened until the state comes in and proves everything, proves every element. through testimony, direct testimony, witness ev evidence, whatever it is. So you bring these things in and you let the jury weigh them against the stories that people are going to tell and what the crime scene investigator found out, what the maybe the the science would be, whatever kind of scientific evidence is presented, then they got to make a determination. So that is starting from everything the state's doing is trying to prove elements of a crime. So where it gets kind of screwballed is well, what do you do with insanity? In Virginia, for using this example, the Commonwealth of Virginia, you are presumed, you are presumed, you walk into court and the presumption is you're sane. So who has the burden of proof for insanity? The defendant. No, right, the defendant.
Charles: the state. I'm sorry, the other defendant. I'm sorry.
Jack Moore: So if the defendant alleges it, now they have the burden of the 50 50, the preponderance you talked about. They've got to prove by a preponderance that they are insane. They're presumed sane. Now they got to put on a lot of evidence. The state can put on witnesses to rebut that. Like, nah, nah, nah, this guy's saying he's nutty, he's not really that nutty. And then that that plays out. Plays out however it plays out. So that's one way of looking at it. But what if the burden is shifted to the state to prove sanity? It's tough because now historically, numbers-wise, they haven't had a real bad record on it. But Anyway, back to this kind of explanation. Almost everything the public believes about the insanity defense is wrong. Now, this is, and I think this is true. And the errors run in both directions. People think it's common. It's not. It's not that common for people. Now, given the fact that this has gotten so much national attention, you might start seeing more and more of it. People think it's a way out. And I think that's true. People think like, well, somebody's just gonna say I was nutty, I had a bad moment.
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: for most who succeed with it. The confinement lasts longer than the prison sentence. People think it turns on whether the defendant knew right from wrong. In Massachusetts, that has not been the whole test since 1844. That is a prong of the McNaughton test, which a lot of states adopted. You have to know the difference between right and wrong. It's really not an issue in Massachusetts. Here's what the verdict actually means: what a defendant has to prove and how it works, and what happens the day after it does. What does not reason not guilty by reason of insanity mean? The verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means the jury found that the defendant committed the act and that the defendant is not criminally responsible for it because of the demental mental disease or defect. The first half gets lost constantly. This is not a finding that the defendant did not do it. Now, I think the way it was presented from everything I saw in coverage of the case.
Charles: Mm.
Jack Moore: The defense attorney never questioned like what you see a lot in the TikTok ads or in the TikTok world. Nobody ever brought out that the the father was the one that did it. I I think he's kind of not laughed it off, but he's been pretty open in this post mistrial environment of saying nobody ever thought the the husband did it. I understand at certain points she made admissions to it. I think in the hospital she made an admission. I think to law enforcement. She may have, but I do remember the point too. I think when she was in the hospital, like, do I have a lawyer yet? Like she's asking about a lawyer. That that came up at some point. I may be wrong on the facts and timing on that. But the bottom line is what was presented to the jury was never a question of did Lindsay Clancy actually take these exercise bands and strangle her kids? That wasn't in question. The only question is what was going on relative to her mind. Factual
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: guilt is usually conceded outright. Because the entire argument depends on it. The dispute is about culpability, which the criminal law treats as a separate question from causation. Causation is why did somebody die? we punish people for choosing to do wrong. The insanity defense says there was no meaningful meaningful choice to punish. So it's a question of whether Lindsey Clancy could really form a Purpose to do what she did, is that really what her choice was? The verdict is an acquittal in name and in almost no other respect. A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity does not go home from the courthouse. Now, here's the key thing about Massachusetts. Why Massachusetts calls it something else? If you search this phrase in Massachusetts, you will find lawyers using different words. The phrase used here is not criminally responsible. Sometimes referred to as NCR to shorten. It means the same thing. And the reason for the different label is that Massachusetts uses a different test than the other states where insanity became the standard shorthand. Most people look this up and land on the McNaughton rule. McNaughton rule from the 1843 case, where David Daniel McNaughton, who shot the British Prime Minister's Prime Minister's secretary while suffering a paranoid delusion, McNaughton asked a single Cognitive question. Did the defendant know the nature and quality of the act or know that it was wrong? So the example I remember we got in law school is if a person was literally taking a kitchen knife or, you know, a butcher knife, and they were, I don't know, you wouldn't cut bread with this, but if they were cutting someone's throat, they were cutting someone's throat, and as they cut the throat, they thought they were cutting bread. That would get to the nature of the act. Like they literally don't know they're cutting bread. Then the second one that was, you know, the example of the quality of the act is they cut a person's head off. And in their mind, yep, I'm cutting their head off, but they're cutting the person's head off because they think it would be funny to watch the body headless run around trying to find its head. If that's literally what's happening in the person's mind. You know, then there were examples of if you're squeezing an orange. You think you're squeezing an orange, but you're actually squeezing the trigger of a firearm and you're shooting somebody. That's the type of you don't understand the nature and quality of your act. And then the second part is do you understand that the action was wrong? And that was part of what was brought up, even though McNaughton test didn't apply in Massachusetts. Part of what was brought up is why is Clancy like sending husband to a restaurant a little bit farther away? And why is she? Sending them to CVS
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: or, you know, so there's some things that like that kind of goes right there. She's using a window of opportunity that she's creating to take the children's lives, which means she has to do it in a veil of secrecy. She's got to do this in a time frame that because she knows what she's doing. A defendant who knew perfectly well that shooting someone was wrong, but was powerless powerless to stop it, fails it. Massachusetts never adopted this rule in full. The state standard is Commonwealth versus Rogers from 1844, where Chief Justice Shaw articulated a test with two branches rather than one a year after McNaughton was decided. The modern formulation comes from McHole, I guess it is Commonwealth versus McHole, 1967, or McHall, H O U U L, which is why Massachusetts lawyers say the McHole, McHall standard. The way lawyers otherwise would say McNaughton, the court adopted the language of the American Law Institute's model Penal Code, Section 4.01. So this is the language they use. This is the language of Massachusetts. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he or she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality, the wrongfulness of the act. of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Read the two branches separately because the word either is doing the work. The cognitive branch, lacking substantial capacity to appreciate the conduct was wrong. This is roughly what the McNaughton test is. And then the volitional branch, lacking substantial capacity to conform conduct to the law. This is the branch McNaughton states do not have. And it's where most serious Massachusetts insanity cases are formed. The defendant only needs one. Someone who knew an act was wrong and could not stop satisfies the standards, and it would fail under a strict McNaughton jurisdiction. In other words, I'm under McNaughton, if you know something's wrong, it doesn't matter that you said you still can't stop yourself. You know it's wrong. Note that the word substantial capacity, the test does not require total incapacity, substantial. One historical detail worth noting and keeping straight, the McHole or McHall Court established the model penal code definition as an evolutionary restatement of the rule rather than a substantial new rule. Massachusetts did not switch tests in 1967. Now, this is the other big key. I know I'm going on a lot here, but this is the big key that I think most people would miss. And I it was it was kind of new to me. I mean, I'd seen it, it happened with the Hinckley trial with Reagan too. And then the federal rules changed that. But who has to prove it? This is the most consequential difference between Massachusetts and the federal system, and most coverage gets it backwards. In Massachusetts, to defend it does not have to prove insanity. Criminal responsibility is an element the Commonwealth must establish. Criminal responsibility becomes an element of the crime that you commit. So in Virginia, it would be prove the elements of the crime. you want to, as the defendant, plead insanity? Prove it. Prove you're insane. And then the state can go back and forth. Here,
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: the state has the burden in proving this case. And now it's making sense to me why. And I kept thinking, like, why would there be a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt coming up all the time about the insanity? What they're saying is Massachusetts. Has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove all these elements, taking of life, Lindsay Clancy's the actor, blah, blah, blah. They had to do all that. And they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was sane in doing so. So now that that's on her, I can understand where the jury was coming back saying we had a reasonable doubt as to her sanity. Where in Virginia, it would be, you would be weighing, has a defense proven. By a preponderance that the person was insane. That's two different things. That it's entirely two different things. So when you have these questions, the question is, is the question, if you have a question about her sanity, the question is, is it reasonable to doubt her sanit sanity? Once evidence sufficient to raise the issue is in case, either from the prosecution or the defense, the prosecution then must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible. Think about what that means in the courtroom. The defense did not have to convince 12 people the defendant was insane. The defense has to leave enough doubt the Commonwealth cannot prove sanity to a certainty. A juror who finds a question genuinely close is instructed to acquit. So you see now, and I don't I haven't heard anybody bring this up really, and that'll bring up another issue too. In federal court, the burden runs the other way. After John Hinckley was acquitted of shooting President Reagan. Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984,
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: which put the burden on the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. And that was clear and convincing, not preponderance, and eliminated the volitional branch from the federal test. Several states did the same. Massachusetts did not. So I bring all that up here. And I know you might have to run it some of it back and play it again because I I went kind of quick. But here's what I want to say about the Hinckley trial, because I remember it. I remember Hinckley shot Reg in March 30, I believe it was, 1981. It was either 30 or 31. I think it was 30. And and then Hinckley goes to trial. And I remember having this talk with my dad. And I said to my dad, I'm like, how in the hell did they just let this guy slide on this insanity thing? And I remember him telling me, he goes, Well, in federal court, they go in and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove sanity. And you got a guy who's shooting at the president over Jodie Foster. So it's it's kind of like
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: like, Hey, you think this guy, doesn't he seem a little bit nutty? Like he's literally seeing the movie Taxi Driver and he wants to shoot the president. That seems kind of insane. Or but it really made it difficult for the prosecution to prove that he that his sanity was at a level that he should be punished or he should be found, you know, criminally responsible. Then as a result, like I said, nineteen eighty four, Reagan shot in eighty one, Congress passes a law to change the federal approach. They didn't change it in Massachusetts. All that being said, having read through this and done some more study, now that I'm seeing the jury responses, and we're going to talk about that too, now that I've seen what the jury members had to say, I think they're right. I think that they're right to question this 12th guy. And I didn't think I was going to know that going in. All right. So what's your whole take on it so far? What has been your in impression in any way, shape, or form about how it's being handled in the news and what your take is?
Charles: she needs to go she needs to go to prison. I'll just start start right there. She needs to go to prison because it needs to be equal. And I understand that that Massachusetts has some differing rules and laws and stuff like that, but
Jack Moore: But what has to be equal?
Charles: as in how men and women are treated when this this same situation occurs. Because there've been plenty of guys that have come out over the past at least reporting of plenty of guys that come out in the past couple of weeks whereas they've done the exact same thing, been proven to be to have some sort of psychosis or whatever, and they end up getting executed.
Jack Moore: Okay.
Charles: So yeah, sorry. but Also, and this is just my personal opinion, women are catching a giant L right now because they seem to be supporting things that there's no defense for. And yeah. Well
Jack Moore: Okay, that's another whole layer of discussion. And that's and that and I'm and I put that out there to you. This has become very political. I did hear a commentator today talking about that very Yeah, it's become political.
Charles: is it political or is it just common sense?
Jack Moore: No, no, no, it's become political. What the guy was talking about, there's literally people now that are saying that the twelfth juror who wanted to convict is a racist. That the that somebody threw out he's a racist. We're in Yeah, you don't think so?
Charles: Yeah, but but that's not political. No, that's no, that's not political. No, that's not political. No.
Jack Moore: Right now they're lining up Republican and Democrat are almost coming almost evenly, whichever party affiliation people have. Republicans think okay, all right.
Charles: No, no, no, no, no. 'Cause I've talked to a whole bunch of people there on the left and they're like, no, she needs to go to prison. A bunch of people. A bunch.
Jack Moore: Are they all males?
Charles: No. No. Yes. Yes. yeah. Lots of them. So this is Yeah. No, because
Jack Moore: You're hearing females on the left say she should go to prison. Okay. All right. I don't think statistically, nationally, that's where we're at with that, but I do think it's I do think it's fair to say that there are definitely po there is some part of the political persuasion that's coming out in the arguments.
Charles: No, what what they're doing is they're pushing this political thing. This is not political. They're pushing they're trying to make it into pol No.
Jack Moore: All right, you're saying it's not political, but okay, but if people are arguing along political grounds and you say it's not political, I get where you're coming
Charles: No, no.
Jack Moore: from, but it makes it political.
Charles: N no. What what the the news I should say is doing is making it political when technically what it is there's a consensus regardless of political people's political affiliation that are saying that no she needs to go to prison.
Jack Moore: All right. Would you not say that you probably cause I've seen the statistics on this too, would you not say that those that are probably going to lean more in the direction of Lindsay should either walk or she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity or women?
Charles: Yes.
Jack Moore: Okay. What do you think that's about?
Charles: Well, again, this is a protection women protecting themselves. Yeah.
Jack Moore: Okay. So do you not think also that women suffer one hundred percent of whatever postpartum issues there are? They suffer one hundred percent and maybe they're seeing this case as an illustration that men don't get it or society doesn't get it. You don't think that?
Charles: No. No. This no, this is a case of just another case of women trying to say, Well, I don't have any responsibilities for my actions.
Jack Moore: All right. I I don't know. I think there's I think there has been a certain degree of people don't understand what women are going through.
Charles: And cute. I again I d there're lots of things that guys go through too, but we get executed for it. So so sorry, women, if you want the responsibilities, then you need if you want the responsibility, you need to be held accountable for it. Period. And that's what the people that I say that are on the left, the females who are on the left, are saying the exact same thing.
Jack Moore: I haven't heard any females on the left say that she should be prosecuted and convicted. You may have talked to some ladies on the street that called
Charles: Psh I've heard I've talked to them personally. Personally.
Jack Moore: Yeah. Okay. I haven't seen that. I mean, I haven't seen like r any kind of commentators that I think come from the left. So but what I have seen, and this is what I mean about the pol you know how political it is, there are some people that we think of as being, you know, that are content creators who are considered right wingers and they're just blowing up the whole system. It's feminism, it's crazy women on the jury. They they're pushing that. And I think that's an unfair take on it as well. I think you ha I'm go ahead.
Charles: Well but wouldn't you but wouldn't you say that that's part of the problem if we're looking to content creators and really caring about what their opinions are when it comes to this because they're gonna have a bias anyway. Talk to people. Not content creators, not not not people on T V. No no no.
Jack Moore: All right, fine, fine. Okay. I okay. Well content creators are people too. Okay. But I I
Charles: They're they're people but they're people that are that are trying to get clicks. That's what they're doing. So no, talk to ac actual people.
Jack Moore: All right, it comes down to that too. All right, all right. Well, there was
Charles: And all the people that I've talked to on the left have said the same thing. She needs to go to prison.
Jack Moore: Well, most of the people I've talked to, and I don't know, they're right, left, sideways, I've I've heard a lot of people that kinda take the position that she's in a wheelchair. She's thirty-nine years of age, I think. I don't know what her what her I have no idea about the biology or the mechanics or anything else. I don't know if she's in a position to conceive again and have another child. So I don't think she I don't think she's probably gonna be in a position to have more children and take their lives. I don't think she's a menace to society where she's gonna go out on the street and and Grab people, shoot people, or anything else. I don't think she's meeting that she poses and I've heard people argue this. She poses a great threat to society. I don't, I don't see that. You know, she did jump out of a building, break, neck, back, whatever to where she's not going to be able to really, she's not mobile. So I don't think she poses that kind of threat. So you have to ask yourself. So I look at it this way. And believe me, I've always kind of leaned the eye for the eye or eye for an eye and all that stuff. I'm not, I'm not saying that I don't think the death penalty is just in some cases. I'm not that guy at all. And I wasn't somebody that I think 10 years ago even was more of that, well, let's look at the big picture and thinking about what the final out final outcome is. You know, you do the crime, you do the time kind of thing. But I I do think there's a practical part of, and that was mentioned, a lot of people who have the not reason by my my not Guilty by reason of insanity, end up spending more time locked up in a mental institution than they would have served time. I know you're saying who gives a shit? I got it's fine. But what but what I'm
Charles: Yeah, I don't. Don't care.
Jack Moore: okay, but Charles, you can put a bow on it and say she was convicted if that makes people feel better. But something's gonna happen as a consequence in her life. And what I'm saying is if she's in a mental institution for the rest of her life, I mean, how much time would she possibly have gotten for a conviction? She could she get life? Possibly. You're rolling your eyes, what I'm saying is, Charles, there
Charles: Yeah.
Jack Moore: is, there there has to be in the end something the system does as a result of this decision. And I'm saying I don't s
Charles: Hm. Prison.
Jack Moore: all right, you call it, okay, where do you think she's gonna be in prison? Where do you think she then where are they gonna lock her up?
Charles: Yeah. Do I d we this is the thing, man. You killed your kids. Go to prison.
Jack Moore: All right, fine, fine. Okay. You all right.
Charles: Really?
Jack Moore: You do okay, but under the standards that were given here, do you not think that there's a reasonable doubt? That that's let's go straight to it. Do you not believe there's a reasonable doubt as to her sanity at the time this of this action?
Charles: Very little.
Jack Moore: What would have very little is something.
Charles: Yeah. how about this? First of all, I would say that anybody that kills somebody is insane. I will say that. Okay? Anybody that does it. let me finish. Anybody that does Dude. Do
Jack Moore: Not well okay no, no, not not necessarily criminally insane.
Charles: no, yes, I would say that they're insane to take somebody else's life to murder someone. I would say that you ha at least have a little bit of insanity going on right now. Just a little bit. Now, but if you're trying to cover it up you're trying to cover it up, then You knew what you were doing. She knew what she was doing. She knew it.
Jack Moore: I understand that argument. And I understand that argument. I think it's a valid argument too. There is enough there that you could say, again, sending the husband out, certain things she did, timing-wise, the fact she was on the computer, how far to CVS, how long before he gets back? I mean, all those things would definitely suggest premeditation. No question. And and I know the thing came out about the voice she heard and she never heard the voice before. but I do think.
Charles: Awfully convenient.
Jack Moore: I do think though there is a practical matter of, all right, again, when you when you get into this picking and choosing of different kinds of cases, I watch a lot of this, you know, this crime stuff. You know, I watch these crime channels on YouTube and things. And, you know, I see one the other day where a 36 year old woman has a 25 year old boyfriend. 25 year old boyfriend kills the husband to take him out. So the couple was high school sweetheart, so they're both in their mid to late 30s. And this 25 year old boyfriend kills him. And it's all so they can go off together and live happily ever after. So this woman's serving life in prison for being in concert with her boyfriend to kill the husband. She had an end game in that. Her end game was husband mysteriously dies. They can't prove it's my boyfriend and we live happily ever after. It's sinister, it's all the rest. I don't think there's any touch of insanity in that. She's just some selfish person that was willing to take the life of her husband who has no idea this is coming. Through her boyfriend, and now they're both serving time. My point on the Clancy thing is there wasn't like three individual insurance policies of a million each and she stood to get three million. She's on the Bahamas, she's on the beach of the Bahamas, you know, you know, sipping drinks and she's just moving on with her life. She's a woman that took three lives of her children and jumped out of a window and put herself in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. So you don't see this kind of sinister. I don't know what the hell it is. I don't know what degree of insanity one might want to accept on the action. But there was nothing in the action she took that you could see like, her sinister plot to gain advantage in some way was to do this, take out this person. Wha
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: what's the upside? I mean, she it's not one go
Charles: It is
Jack Moore: ahead.
Charles: it is the most sinister of all to kill your kids.
Jack Moore: So you think so killing your kids is worse than taking out your husband because you want to be with your twenty five year old boyfriend? Really? That's interesting. Okay.
Charles: gosh, yes. It's not even close. It's not even close. Because those are your children. So it it w the analogy that you gave would be almost the same, almost the same as me going out and stealing somebody's car and killing them. Because I wanted a car. Okay, that that's fine, but it does not rise to the level of killing your kids. There's nothing that rises to the level of killing your kids. Nothing.
Jack Moore: Okay. okay. When we get in all right, I think the difference between you and I approaching this is you've you're putting something on the value of human life based upon a relationship, mom, the child, something like that. I got the husband killed by the wife through a boyfriend, but what I I guess what I'm saying is the the how I see Lindsay Clancy different from the thirty-six year old female with the twenty-five year old boyfriend that took out the husband is. She did it with the sinister plan to eliminate her husband to move on with this other guy. And I think there's also a life insurance policy that had been recently taken out on him, which also came up in evidence. Like,
Charles: She
Jack Moore: yeah.
Charles: doesn't sound like she didn't care about her her husband, but also she wasn't she wasn't charged with ensuring that her husband was taken care of either.
Jack Moore: I'm sorry, say that again.
Charles: That's what so she didn't care about her husband. Let's start there. But also
Jack Moore: Well, he was the impediment to her lifetime of love and happiness with her boyfriend.
Charles: But also she didn't have to, she wasn't charged with caring for her husband. Lindsay Clancy as a parent is charged with caring for and ensuring that her children are are ta are taken care of. That's the why it's the worst of the worst.
Jack Moore: Then okay, all right, all right. Do you not see though all right, d okay, can you tell me and again motive is never an element of a crime though, but can you tell me can you tell me what you think was her motivation for taking the lives of her children?
Charles: I honestly man, didn't really think too much about it.
Jack Moore: Right. The woman that had her husband killed didn't want her husband in the way of having whatever joy and happiness she thought she was going to have with the breakaway with the new this new guy and everything. So that's clear. It I know both are the taking of human life in someone relative to you. One, you took vows to spend the rest of your life with, et cetera, and you took him out because you wanted to move on to the other guy. You got a mother that took out her three kids and we're not really sure why. And then you've got, Everybody's family, including her own mother-in-law, the the you know, the the mother of the guy that fathered the children, saying she was a great
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: mother, she was a loving mother. So I think if you're sitting in judgment of that, you could say, Seems like something went off the rails for her. Seems like there was a history of some things she was battling. It's not a justification for her to take the lives of her children, but what I'm saying is there doesn't seem to be some sinister underlying motivation of getting. gain that she achieves by taking out the kids.
Charles: So there are people who think that children are a hindrance to whatever career or life experience they they think they missed out on. There are people who believe that.
Jack Moore: Sure. Sure.
Charles: And you can take it back to what is the number one reason for an abortion? Inconvenience.
Jack Moore: Inconvenience. Yeah.
Charles: Yes, exactly. So there are people what just because the kid is born, you don't think that there are people who still have that same feeling of
Jack Moore: Sure.
Charles: inconvenience?
Jack Moore: And if you showed me that in this case, I'd listen. But I I haven't heard that.
Charles: well, I understand what you're saying, but you can't convince me s that some voice in her head told her to do it either.
Jack Moore: Maybe not.
Charles: Cause that's it again, that sounds awfully convenient to me. No, I'm I'm crazy all of a sudden. So no, I don't believe that
Jack Moore: Okay. Okay. All right.
Charles: either.
Jack Moore: Right. And and I don't I don't know exactly, you know, but all right, I I thought of two other cases as a result of this. When everybody brought up this, I was like, what was that case back in 2001? I remember I was working as a prosecutor and it was the Andrea Yates case in Texas. And she systematically took five children and drowned them in the bathtub. And she's still right now locked up in a mental institution. Okay, she but she was found not guilty by a reason of insanity. And One of the things I remember that came out in that case was she continued to have children and was showing dire signs of some real issues that she was dealing with. And the husband just kept giving her more kids. And they were kind of like, okay, I'm not justifying the death of five kids, but let me move on to the other
Charles: No, no, I'm I'm
Jack Moore: one. Susan Smith. Why did Susan Smith put two kids in the lake? Because she had a boyfriend. The guy goes, you know, I think you're hot and sexy, and I really would like to be involved with you, but I can't do this thing of having you having kids. So she puts them and she drowns them. And America goes through that whole nightmare. So, you know, people were like, Well, mothers do things, terrible things to their kids and have some other kind of motivation. Sure. I just don't know what that is here. All right, let's talk about a little bit about the jury thing. Okay. So many people have already seen these jury members come out. What came out apparently from the jury is something that's not supposed to happen. And that is they kind of knew the numbers. of who was for acquittal and who wasn't. So his this is a Boston news station and their coverage of this. So let's take a look at this.
Charles: before we go any further, 'cause I'm looking for this and I can't find the lady's name, there is a woman who killed her kids, I think it was three kids. She is found to be insane. She goes to an institution, she gets out,
Jack Moore: Right. Right. Mm-hmm.
Charles: she gets married, she has more kids and she kills those kids too.
Jack Moore: And she killed three more. I've heard that story, yeah.
Charles: Right, right. So a again, man, I'm not giving
Jack Moore: And I've heard that is a reason why Lindy Lindsay Clancy shouldn't be found not guilty by reason of insanity. And again, I don't know what her prospects are for having more children. I I wouldn't think it's good. I don't know the mechanics of being paralyzed from the region of her life or her body down. It's gonna have anything to do with the complications. I don't know. I I don't know. I don't know her prospects for having another guy come into her life that wants to father more children with her. I don't know any of that. But if we're if we're laying the line down of we can't find her. not guilty by a reason of insanity because she might have three more children and kill them. Okay. It's an argument. But I think it's a wrong argument as to the individual aspects. They may have gotten it right before. They they may have gotten it right that she was was the other lady was insane and had killed three children. She went on to kill three more. I get it. But I don't know that that lays down a law that you have going forward. Never again Well, a mother that's been proven to pretty much have an in of the degree of insanity, requisite degree of insanity at the time of the action taken. Well, we're not gonna do that anymore because this lady killed three more kids. It's a good argument to say there's no guarantee that Lind Lindsay Clancy won't do it again if given the opportunity, but we don't know.
Charles: Well, I just I would like f the for more equal treatment. When guys get in this situation, they get executed. So sorry, Lindsay.
Jack Moore: Y y ye yeah, okay. I I I d I
Charles: Sorry, too bad. I have zero com I have zero compassion for this woman. Zero. And th and again, in the in the conversations I've had with people, they feel exactly the way that I feel. Exactly. And these
Jack Moore: That's fine. That's fine.
Charles: are people who we don't agree on pretty much anything politically, but for some odd reason this time, they're like, No, she needs to go to prison.
Jack Moore: Charles, I will say this too. Yeah, say I, Charles, all right. Yeah, I'll say this too. I don't have any compassion really for her either. I do not. And I get
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: it, and we're gonna get this from the jury. They are emotionally invested in her. I have no ill will towards Lindsay Clancy. No ill will, but I don't have any compassion for her. I'm not, I'm not spitting that. What I'm saying is I'm trying to be slow pulsed and objective and say, Is there evidence here that she was operating from a disease mind that this is something where she's not criminally responsible? That's all I'm doing. I'm not getting into what else
Charles: I don't see.
Jack Moore: could happen, how many more kids she might have. But I did bring up and I will stick by, there is one thing is the practical reality of post whatever comes out of this. And I think the practical reality is her as someone who's most likely to go back and kill more children of her own or whatever. I don't think it's high, but. And I think that either way, she's gonna be in a mental inst mental institution probably the rest of her life or prison for a long period of time. Either way, I think her life is pretty much destroyed. And I, you know, that's you know that's a punishment of itself. But let's watch this real quick. Let's listen to this story about the jury members.
Charles: Okay. Sure. Happen.
Jack Moore: Okay. I this is something that's been brought up quite a bit. Prosecution didn't show enough compassion. So, right,
Charles: Right. Bananas.
Jack Moore: now I but I will say this strategically, really bad example, but I'll give it. I was sitting in court one day and a woman had asked for a bond and she was in trouble, lots of drug issues, et cetera. And they're everybody in the and everybody in the courtroom, especially the seasoned attorneys, knew there's no way this judge is gonna let this girl out. And who comes to testify? For the daughter is the mother. And the mother's like, Yeah, I'm gonna make plans to do this and this. So this prosecutor gets up and beats up on mom, just beats her up and says, Well, do you know what your daughter's history is? And do you know, yeah, when you were she was in your caring custody, look at what else she did. And a group of us are saying, like, damn, look, lady, bring it down. Like she's a young attorney, she's screaming and hollering basically at this mom. And finally the judge stops her and like, Look, I'm not gonna let the girl out. My point is, there are times you have a feel. I do think. That the prosecutor maybe strategically should be careful not to beat up on a mother that's taken the lives of her three kids. But their view that she wasn't compassionate enough is a little bit bizarre, I think. So let's listen to what they had to say. All right, now, what do you think of a statement? I th there's two things there, I think. One is I found it to be biased right out of the gate. What do you think of that?
Charles: Well, so it's interesting that that person said that. And the reason being is I'm gonna ask you as an attorney, if you were selecting a jury and Come to find out one of the jurors had a definitive bias in this case and they hid it. They hid it during the questioning before they were selected. How would you feel as an attorney about that jury?
Jack Moore: I might feel like crap, but it's a question of what you can do about it. And I think people can hide things. I isn't she the one I don't know, I'm spitballing, but isn't she the one that's kinda got some history online of being an advocate? Kind of yeah, I I th I heard something about that. And then yeah.
Charles: yeah. Yeah. So she has 'cause they're going after the the actual guy who had balls that said no, she she committed murder. They're going after
Jack Moore: Alright, well there
Charles: this guy. They're doxing this dude right now, okay? So
Jack Moore: Yeah, there's gonna be more to that though about whether or not he really 'cause it even the male jury or memory the jury member that's come out has said he kept conceding to us, I have a reasonable doubt as to her sanity, but I'm not gonna vote that way. You know, he just kept
Charles: Okay, true, but that well, let's get because I want to talk about that guy too. But the woman that we just saw, th and again, we're back to the the guy who said no, she's a murderer. They're saying, well, he's got this charge, he's done this, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But they haven't said anything about that first lady that we just saw, who has a domestic violence charge herself. But also
Jack Moore: Domestic violence charge where she was the victim or she hit someone? Okay. Well no, was it a domestic hit her daughter or hit her f h husband or okay, gotcha. Right.
Charles: She hit somebody. Okay. But also, well, don't know who it was, but she has a charge against somebody. So but also she's the same person that was in all kinds of Facebook groups, essentially saying that she has a prosecution, anti prosecution bias, but also that she already thought that Lindsay Caclancy was was innocent.
Jack Moore: I don't know that she thinks she's innocent. I think she's saying not guilty by reason of insanity.
Charles: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, listen, no, listen what I'm saying. She was in groups before this trial saying that she knew that she was innocent. So and she also had a No, innocent
Jack Moore: Innocent as in the husband did it or she did it and she
Charles: that she didn't do it. So
Jack Moore: Okay. All right.
Charles: this again, this person, you know, they're not going after her, but they're going after the guy that said, No, she committed murder.
Jack Moore: Well, think both could be wrong, Charles. She could be wrong for the position
Charles: No, I agree.
Jack Moore: she took and he could be wrong for hearing the evidence he did and not, you know, going with the flow of the rest because they had a better argument. Both could be true.
Charles: D I agree what you're saying. I agree what you're saying, but the thing is the news, the people that we're watching right now could be doing the same for both, but they're not because they're biased themselves.
Jack Moore: I clearly believe, yeah. I clearly believe that the alphabet networks and and pretty much, you know, mass media or established media is no question on the side of Lindsay Clancy. And to be honest with you, I think it's unfair to her because I I don't think there's been enough things c look, she she's starting from the she took the lies brutally of her three kids. All right, that's her starting point. But
Charles: Mm-hmm. Right.
Jack Moore: other than that. a matter of fact, the the the defense attorney came out at some point and said that she was highly upset that people were trying to insinuate that her husband would have done that. Like sh that does that bothers her. You know, that was never an out for her. But that my point is like that there's nothing past this act that you see in her life. Now, the other thing that was brought up by the woman, and I I don't know that it's not a fair point, the first we just listened to, she seems to be saying that. Why didn't you bring in, she said character witnesses to show that she's a bad mother? I think in I don't know that they had them. Let me just say that, but you you can't bring in witnesses generally. You you it it's I don't it could be state to state. You can't bring in witnesses to say a person is a bad person and therefore acted in conformity to their being a bad person. Now, the fact that there were definitely a lot of people that came in and said she was a good mother. I think it would go to the issue of what was her mindset at the time of the taking
Charles: Mm.
Jack Moore: of life. I don't know that it was fair. That would be the question. If the prosecution could come across somebody to say she was a bad mother, I don't know that it wouldn't have drawn an objection. And I don't know how the court would have ruled on that. she's
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: never killed children before. She's so so there's no like, and she did this before with three other kids and therefore This is her character, and she acted in conformity to her bad character of taking the lives of children. But what this woman is saying is they didn't bring people other than professionals. Now they're bringing the professionals, the medical types, to say we don't see a level of insanity that would get her into a position of being found not guilty by reason of insanity. And that seems I think that's kind of their job. They have to prove her sane. And proving, yeah,
Charles: How about this, friend?
Jack Moore: go.
Charles: There's this quote that I screenshot last month. It's from Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Jack Moore: Okay.
Charles: And it's kind of sort of along with what you're saying about what this lady said. they never brought anybody that said any good things about her. Whatever. What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say. So they could have brought in a mile long line. of people saying, she was such a great person and I'm looking I would be looking at them like you have lost your mind. that's fine. You can sit there and say that she's such a great person. Unfortunately, this great person that you're saying right here just murdered their three kids. So I don't care what you have to say about this. It wouldn't matter to me. And that's what the guy was saying. It didn't matter about any of the stuff. And one of the one of the the jurors kept saying, you know, he just couldn't get over that she viciously murdered her kids. Exactly. And he shouldn't get over it. That's exactly right. She viciously murdered her kids. I don't care what anybody has to say. I don't care what their testimony has to be is or their opinion of she's just a great person. She murdered her kids. She obviously was
Jack Moore: Yeah, well
Charles: not a great person.
Jack Moore: okay. The the murder part is a term of art, yeah. And I think it certainly would be the charge. You know, then the question is can you prove all the elements thereof and all that kind of stuff. So it's interesting that that jury member did say, and it's coming up in the clip. She d I believe it's still in the clip coming up. She did say he couldn't get past the viciousness. And I thought about that too, because I heard one commentator who leans right, who is like Clancy should be executed for this. He was like, that implies a degree of knowledge of your actions to be vicious. And I thought, well, not really. I think you could act in a vicious manner and be out of your mind. I mean, I think somebody trying to measure the severity of the action taken could go, man, that was vicious. And it doesn't necessarily mean the person who's doing it is aware. But usually when we think about the vicious nature of an action, like taking the lives of your children by strangling them, you would think there is. some degree of acceptance in that one's mind that this is something they want to do, that this does become, they are acting rationally, even though it's an irrational act. They're acting where they are measuring what they're doing as to the potential result. And that would mean that they're not insane or they're not acting under a mental defect. But I also think you could be all of those things. You you could be delusional at some level and still act in a fashion that you follow through on a very evil action. Let's see what the next lady has to say. I think she's kind of interesting too.
Charles: These people
Jack Moore: Is that fair? Wait a minute. Is that fair? Let me ask you that fair. Is that fair to say that a pretty good evidence to give you a reason to believe or to have a reasonable doubt as to her sanity is she shows no other history of being a danger to the kids?
Charles: Is that fair as in should I consider it?
Jack Moore: If one were to look yes.
Charles: No, 'cause she based on what she did, no, I shouldn't. 'Cause that's just an opinion.
Jack Moore: Wha w what okay, an opinion. Well, that's what
Charles: Yeah.
Jack Moore: you you well, you kinda have to form an opinion to be on a jury. I mean, you're going to speak through that opinion as to mm-hmm.
Charles: understood. But I'm gonna form that opinion based off of the person's action.
Jack Moore: Right. That as
Charles: I could s you know, I could not like somebody. I really could not like somebody but defend them. And defend because
Jack Moore: Yeah.
Charles: I knew that what they what they're being accused of they didn't do. I can do that, I can separate the two, okay?
Jack Moore: Right. Right.
Charles: I could like Lindsay. But she murdered her kids. So it doesn't matter
Jack Moore: Okay.
Charles: if I liked her or not.
Jack Moore: It sounds like more and more though where you're going is murder kids, all consideration of remental state, off the board. I don't care. I don't care what I hear.
Charles: Especially with her strangling.
Jack Moore: Are you accepting that? Though are you accepting that that you couldn't find her anything other than guilty and she acted of a reasonable mind or she didn't have a mental defect or any mental disease? You you're you're like, kill the kids. I don't care. I don't care what else you show me. I don't wanna hear it. Is that right?
Charles: Sitting in in that jury I couldn't find I it would be very, very difficult, probably impossible for me to find her other than guilty of murder.
Jack Moore: All right. Now when you say that again, let me let me back up and make sure I'm clear on this. Are you saying that going in, you're saying that nothing that could have been presented would have made you question that she should be found not guilty by not guilty by reason of insanity.
Charles: I have not heard anything on this case that has come out that would have changed my opinion. No no. No, but we're but we're talking about this case here.
Jack Moore: That's different. That's different. That's different. That's different. You're no, no. Now you're saying in no, no, no, no. I'm asking a specific question. I'm not asking you, have you heard what you've heard and it hasn't been persuasive? That's fine. But if you said that, imp you that the implication is you're like, but if you showed me enough, if you showed me what you needed to show me, I could I could vote for not guilty, but I don't hear that. I hear like I don't give a shit what you say. How it was said, I don't care what the evidence was. I say kids killed by mother. That's it. So that's why I'm asking you. Could you hear anything? I understand that. Charles, my question is, can you listen to evidence and be persuaded the other
Charles: No, no, but we're talking about this case here. Cause it's something that you said ear hold on a minute, but it's something you said earlier dude, dude, listen.
Jack Moore: way?
Charles: I'm going to answer your question by bringing up something that you said earlier.
Jack Moore: Go.
Charles: If Lindsay has said that I'm going to strangle these kids because I want to see them floating around in the room, then I would say that she's crazy. That yeah, she was mentally insane. That's not what she said. Based on the evidence that's come that I've seen come out of this case, she committed murder. Cause I I no no, but you're ask dude, you're asking me a question. No man. No. Yes, cause I'm only speaking on this case. I'm only hm
Jack Moore: You're saying two different things, and I don't know that you're aware you're doing it. You just said, based on what I've seen out of the case, I don't see it. I understand that. But Charles, you just said, based on what I've seen come out of this case, I don't see a not guilty by reason of insanity. My question is, was there anything in there? And I think what you just said is the one they're gonna float after that, that would have done it for you. But mine is that. So you're saying you would have been able to sit on the jury. And be objective. And if you've heard enough to trigger your questioning of having a reasonable doubt as to her sanity, you could have voted in her favor to say not guilty by reason and sanity. That is capable you were capable of that.
Charles: Yeah, I'm capable of that, but in this case, specifically this case, with the evidence that we're privy to, there wasn't anything that that they said.
Jack Moore: I got I got you. Okay. 'Cause I got the vibe from you earlier. You were kind of saying, I don't care what they said, I'm not seeing that because she killed her kids. But now you're saying that you could have seen it if it had been presented. You just didn't see it.
Charles: Not from her, no. No, not from her. Do I st do I s
Jack Moore: Not f she didn't testify, but
Charles: do I still s say that killing your kids is the worst of the worst? Yes, I do still say that. Yeah.
Jack Moore: Okay, I gotcha. All right, let's see what else is said here. Compassionate arrogance. All right. So the the ladies are going around that this is something that's disturbed me for some time. And let me tell the listener, Charles, you've heard this before. what's and I actually told this to somebody yesterday in discussing jury jury members and this kind of thing, and we'll come back to this, but this actually happened. I was in a particular city working as a prosecutor. We had a young lady in the office that got brought over to another city to be what we called a special prosecutor. They had some conflict in the office. Meaning that other city. They had a conflict where they couldn't have a member of their office prosecute this. So they called over to our city, brought her over. So we're all sitting around at lunch one day and she goes, Wow, I just came from that other city doing the special prosecutor case. And it had to be a felony sexual assault case. This often happens in like rape cases where there's no question about sexual intercourse. There's a question about consent. I think it was a he said, she said, that's what it was. And she said it was very questionable as to the facts of whether the woman had given consent. But, you know, they had some history or whatever that she said, I think a jury might accept the fact that this guy was in the wrong and it crossed the lines, met the elements, and he will be convicted. But she's like, he might get a lesser included of something else and we'll probably maybe go to a plea deal before it's over with because it just didn't seem like really strong evidence against the guy. So it ends up being a jury trial and the male. In this case, she has a female attorney. And she comes, so she's sitting, you know, she has no reason to lie to it. She's sitting at lunch and she's like, Wow, I really start to question everything I thought about juries after this. And we're like, tell us more. She goes, Well, they convict the guy and they give him max time. They give him max time. And she's like taken aback, like, whoa, like there was one thing to convict him, but they also got to sentence him and they went crazy on the sentencing. And you can in the Commonwealth Virginia, probably every state, you can catch jury members coming out. You can't harass them. You can if they say they don't want to talk to you, they don't have to. But, you know, she said she caught some jury members and and attorneys often do this too to say, what could I do better in court? What did I present that was persuasive? You know, what can you tell me about the event? So she said she walked up to three women. They were women, three women and says, Hey, I was the prosecutor in the case. And what did you think? And they were like, Yeah, baby, we loved you. And then they said, But that other woman, uh-huh. She wore that belt with those shoes. Not in our courtroom. Screw that. And she wore that lipstick and that shade of fingernail polish. No lie. And we're like, you gotta be kidding. Like, no. This group of women on the jury hated the defense attorney, thought she dressed inappropriately or whatever. They eventually took it out on the guy. In effect. I mean, they took it out on the guy. They gave him max time and convicted him. And she goes, I'll always be concerned about juries going forward. Now I tell you that story to say, you can tell where these ladies go into it, which you know, what their position, starting position is. They're talking about, man, that defense attorney was so compassionate to Lindsay, but not the prosecutor. It was his client. I mean, now, but
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: what becomes bad, and it's a reality. And I've been watching another guy that does a show that's a lawyer and it's true. You can be a hundred percent right on the facts. You can ask the right questions, you can follow a light of procedure. If juries don't like you, they're going, and then I'll tell you another one too. My sister worked in the court system in a very rural part of Virginia, the out in the sticks, kind of a small town. And she said she knew of attorneys from a very large city in the state. That would come and wear khaki pants, loafers, and the blue blazer with the gold buttons when they were in that county. And she said they'd put the Rolex, you know, they'd leave the Rolex at home, they'd wear a time X and all this. She said she knew it for a fact because they'd kind of laughed and told her, if we come in there as a bunch of farmers in the jury and I'm wearing the $2,000 suit with the Rolex, they're gonna go, big city slicker wants to come in here and big time me. So they would dress down in the jurisdiction. knowing they wouldn't be liked if they looked financially well off. And that's true too. So you really have to wonder about juries, but you're finding more on this one particular lady, it appears that she was very much an advocate, not just a jury member. But let's
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: listen to a little bit more what they said. Don't want to get reaction. So are we surprised that they were really turned on by the fact that this attorney seemed to so care about Lindsay?
Charles: They shouldn't be surprised for the fact that that's his job.
Jack Moore: Right.
Charles: to say man, honestly. I really don't.
Jack Moore: So yeah, there's there's two things there. There's the one side of it, you're right, shouldn't be surprised. But the what I was mentioning there kind of about, you know, the not liking the attorney. I don't know that the attorney that I saw as the prosecutor really did present that well. And and when I talked about the case where there was the bond hearing and I thought the woman, the young attorney, went overboard beating up on a mother that's there trying to get her daughter released on bond, it was It wasn't before a jury. And it wasn't going to convince the judge of anything. But we all were kind of like, you gotta learn the boundaries. Like sometimes it's just best in that case to shut up. You're the prosecutor. You're trying to block any chance of her release because you think she's a danger to the computer. She was really a danger to herself. She's a drug addict. And in mom's house, she couldn't keep it together. So the point the prosecutor wants to make is. Mom, are you aware of the fact the whole time she stayed with you, she was doing drugs, selling drugs and the rest? But she did it in a manner that beat up on mom. So, put another way, if she had said, ma'am, I understand you love your daughter, establish the bias. I understand you love your daughter. You do want to see her release, yes. But you're aware when she was staying with you, she did a massive amount of drugs, right? You know, and that one drug deal took place when she was living under your roof, right? You remember that. You get the same thing in, right? You get the same thing in. You can do it in that tone and go recognizing how much you love your daughter. So I say that to say, I don't know what the exact parameters were or the av avenues to do this, but what might have been effective more so with the prosecution is to seem compassionate to the fact that a man has lost his three children and a mother has taken the lives of three children, and yet present the case that she's not insane. I think their fear was. If they didn't make her out to be some degree of monster, she was going to be too sympathetic a character and they'd get the reasonable doubt or they they would try to establish the reasonable doubt. I think that might have been what's going on a little bit. Maybe it wasn't the best people in the office either, which brings up the next issue that I want to ask you. What do you think are the chances that they're going to bring this back?
Charles: As in retrying it?
Jack Moore: Yes.
Charles: a hundred percent.
Jack Moore: Okay. I've listened to some attorneys talk about that. And one was a former prosecutor in a big office and he said, Yeah, we had a rolling every two, three weeks or something like that, we had meetings. And it was what just came out of grand jury, what are we going to directly indict? What we're going to do on preliminary hearing, you know, whatever we were going to bring to court. And one thing that was constantly sort of revolving in this meeting we had with the higher ups in the office is hey, where we had a mistrial, where have we had denull process? What are we going to do? What are we going to bring back? And his professional opinion was because if you got 11 to 1 and now it's out on the street, which should have never happened. I mean, I understand that in that note that whatever this jury member sent was, yeah, we got this one guy who's an idiot and he won't come around to the ways we see. But that got out, that let the cat out of the bag kind of to the public that it's an 11-1. Well, if you're a prosecutor and you just presented your case. And you know eleven were ready to go, not guilty by reason of insanity. What do you think your chances are the next time? You really think you're gonna get twelve to vote to convict?
Charles: Mm who knows?
Jack Moore: I don't think they will. And I think what I think what they might do is they might throw a plea agreement. They might say, just go ahead and plead to not guilt not guilty by reason of insanity and they'll put her in a mental institution. I've heard an offer potentially of manslaughter. It's going to be voluntary manslaughter. She did voluntarily take the lives of her kids. So if she pleads to that, that'll get her prison time. And they can sort out, you know, the prison time and how she's held and things like that. But Do I think they're gonna get a premeditated murder type of conviction? They're gonna get twelve people unanimously. And the other thing they have to think about is there was a great deal of cost with this trial. They're gonna run right through it again. Can they just I don't think it would be popular in the community, to be honest with you.
Charles: You don't?
Jack Moore: I don't know. You'd have to go out there and tell me what's going on in that area of Massachusetts. But I I would think there's a lot of supporters of her.
Charles: Well, remember that Lindsay got like a million dollars donated to her for her defense fund. Which is just absolute bananas. Again, women are catching giant L's right now. They're doing some really stupid stuff. And that's that I don't know if you know that there is a trending phrase on Twitter slash X right now. It's repeal the nineteenth.
Jack Moore: Yeah. I mean, I've I've heard a lot of stuff.
Charles: Yeah.
Jack Moore: And when I just told that story about what happened to a colleague of mine, it was women. I mean, when she said, Yeah,
Charles: Yeah, it always is.
Jack Moore: and you're saying always, and I get it, but this was 20
Charles: Yeah. 'Cause
Jack Moore: plus years ago. They but but they were clear. They were clear. And and I and there's, you know, that they didn't they were upset with the attire of the defense attorney. But I will say this too. It's always been A little bit of a problem I've had because I think that men and women argue differently and they absorb things differently. And I got it, I got some sense of that just now, listening to those jury members when they were talking about compassion. And then they bring up the arrogance thing. I've always heard that argument too that that I've heard more from women, but it's almost like, well, it's the tone of your voice. And then it's like, well, am I right? Well, you may be right. But you lose right because you're making me feel uncomfortable. You know what I mean? It's kind of like, you know, you're making me feel uncomfortable. So they get into their feelings about how they feel about the presentation. And again, if you're a good attorney, you gotta rep you, you know, you have to kind of take that into account that you can be fiery and you can be on point. You can be a lot of things. And you may have somebody go, I think he's right all the time, but that is so arrogant. And I absolutely hate arrogance. Okay. You hate arrogant.
Charles: I just sent you something, man.
Jack Moore: Yeah.
Charles: Any way that you could post a play this is it's about a minute.
Jack Moore: there probably would be if it was okay.
Charles: How else do I need to send it to you?
Jack Moore: Well, I'm gonna send it to my email address.
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: I'm gonna send it to my email address and I should be able op able to open it up from my email. Let's see if it went through. All right, I'm gonna play this cold and I'm not gonna get any trouble from I don't know. You tell me. You're the one that's
Charles: Okay. No. No.
Jack Moore: saying that's worth okay. It's
Charles: it's definitely worth listening.
Jack Moore: not coming through. of course that would happen. Alright, you've sent it to me. Why is it not we're not getting okay. I don't know how to speed this up, but I sent it to myself by email. If I could go into my email, I could go right in here and Okay, this is gonna be interesting. I wish this could work. let's let's see, more send
Charles: I mean I could just play it.
Jack Moore: it. if you can do the share thing, I'm trying to send it to my computer.
Charles: Well I really just the audio needs to be played, honestly.
Jack Moore: Okay. All right folks. that's what we're gonna do here. I'm gonna play the audio.
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: I'm gonna I c I can play the audio right up here next to my microphone. There is no universe that exists where a man would kill three of his children and be going to the courthouse. But somehow there's women out there that think this is a good thing. So now we are promoting killing children outside the wall. Is this not crazy? This is crazy. Yes, I understand she was on all these drugs and all the other things. Seek help. You're a grown woman. This is a catastrophe that one that this thing happened at all, and we should pray for her. I think she has demons, to be honest. But these women that are behind her. Insanity is reigning in many places. If you're dating a woman right now who is a supporter of this woman who killed her children, cut bait and run for your life. Because one day you'll be having kids with her and she thinks this is okay. I'm serious. That's a big impediment for me in a marriage. Let me tell you this is Lindsay. You know, I think that there's gradations on this though. I do. I think that there are women who like I listen to two women R right when this whole trial was starting, that both were like the right wing Christian ladies. Like they did right wing Republican shows, Love America, Love Trump. They're those ladies. And both of them were like, man, I was massively depressed after childbirth. I was all messed up. And they're like, so we kind of get it. I'm saying politically they came from that side of law and order, she must pay, but they were both conceding like. Man, I had some bad moments. I had some bad thoughts. I even told my husband, get me, get me away, let me get away for a while. So I wonder how I think there's women, I think it's always the spectrum. There are women on one part of it I share in the feelings that I think a lot of women have that people just don't get what we might go through in being mothers and postpartum, et cetera. And then I think there is a on some part of that side of the argument, much like this, this Priest is saying, I think there's a pro-abortion aspect to it. I really do. I think the same women, because I think some of the things that people say in support of quote unquote reproductive rights is really over the top. It's really, really over the top about the destruction of human life in the womb. And it gets to the point, like, man, you, you're, you're doing child sacrifice. You're, you're way past just my body, my choice. It's like, You really like enjoy the process. And I've seen things posted where women's like, Yeah, I had an abortion, and damn it, I'll have f five more and screw you for even saying anything. If there's a society that's produced women with the view of the ending of human life in the womb as they have, I don't think it's much of a stress for them to say, I support this too. Yeah. Yeah.
Charles: I agree. Yeah, I agree.
Jack Moore: Yeah. If you've gone to that extreme as to The sanctity of life not being such a major concern that I don't think that's much of a stretch.
Charles: Excuse me. murdering someone. I always look at it as the further away in relation to the person, more than likely the easier it is, but for that person to do it.
Jack Moore: Uh-huh.
Charles: That's why I keep bringing up the thing about your kids. If think think of it this way, man, strangling someone is quite possibly the most
Jack Moore: Yeah, it's it's big. Yeah.
Charles: Okay, she did it three times.
Jack Moore: Right. And I know that the one thing that's been brought up too, I guess it was the third child tried to run. I think there's some question about her pursuit of the child.
Charles: Did you did you hear one of the male jurors complaining that the guy with the actual balls would he demonstrate it in front of the jury? Did you hear about that?
Jack Moore: Yeah, he took it. Yeah. Well, that was the guy that was the military member that or had served in the military. And he said it was inappropriate. They never understood why, but he took the bands. He literally took the bands out of the evidence bag and wrapped them around a water bottle. And I don't
Charles: Right. And then
Jack Moore: yeah.
Charles: the person who was asking him in the interview her interview asked him, Well, why do you think he did that? And the guide literally said, I don't know. Really? You don't know why this guy is demonstrating this in front of you. You have lost your damn mind. You have lost your mind.
Jack Moore: Well I can think of a lot of I can think of a lot of different reasons along a spectrum he might have done that. Some of is screw
Charles: Yes.
Jack Moore: you and some of them might have been this is a lot easier to do than you think. I don't know. What what what is it that you think is obvious?
Charles: Or or he's demonstrating how what it was like around a child's neck.
Jack Moore: Okay.
Charles: That's what he did. And this guy couldn't figure it out.
Jack Moore: But yeah, okay. And the purpose of in that and the purpose of would be what?
Charles: To demonstrate that this is what this woman did to her three children.
Jack Moore: And I think everybody's aware of that. So you don't wanna Okay, all right.
Charles: No, actually I don't, man. I'm I'm I'm kinda I'm kinda believing that some of these people on this jury I I don't man. 'Cause they're
Jack Moore: All right.
Charles: they are they are s saying some of the dumbest, stupidest things that I've heard a lot of people say, man.
Jack Moore: I don't know. After I watched those women, I thought I did see some things, like I pointed out, thinking the prosecutors were were meanies, you know, weren't weren't compassionate enough. And that the fact that the defense attorney, although arrogant, which you know, arrogance the thing they don't like a lot, he was also kind of cute and funny and all this kind of stuff. And man, he really had passion a compassion for Lindsay, his client. And I'm like, really? Is that really something that that important in the equation? That you be compassionate. Yep. All right. So you're you're all right. All right, so close
Charles: Repeal the nineteenth. Get off the juries. Do it
Jack Moore: closing arguments, Mr. Huntley, closing arguments.
Charles: kind of sort of what the priest was saying, we're at a point now where it doesn't seem like human life more specifically the lives of children really matter that much any longer. That's what it seems like. And if
Jack Moore: I I yeah, I I hear his commentary and the use of this case. I just think it's one of the most fascinating things of all the stuff that's gone on the last ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years. Like Susan Smith was a really a watershed event too. I remember that. The media was different. We didn't have social media to the same degree. But the number of people that were out there at first in supportive were, that poor girl, her k kids were kidnapped. And it's like, no, she she drowned him in a lake because she wanted to be with this other guy, you know. And then that
Charles: Right. I remember.
Jack Moore: that yeah. So That was a biggie, and there's just been a lot of these cases through the years that get a lot of emotional attention from people. And I just again, I look at what I just think I saw in the coverage of these jury members. And I do think I can I can understand where they came from. But what again, when I open this whole show, what I still want to start from is. I don't think people really had an understanding of what the standard was. And given what the standard is and what Massachusetts is saying to get a not guilty by reason of insanity, I don't think people are even looking at that and how reasonable it was for the jury to come to the conclusion they did. Again, so many parties with their certain ends of the political spectrum. Are just like, she should die, she should go to the chair. And then there's other group, like, no, she's an angelic figure because she killed her kids and she represents women's rights or something. People are going so extreme on both sides that I think they're missing the point that the jury members have made a, I think, a really decent argument that the question of reasonable doubt as to her sanity, given the burden of persuasion that the prosecution held, it was reasonable to say let her. Find her not guilty by reason. I think that's reasonable. But I also think it's possible that that 12th member could have
Charles: Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: said, no, I do think she operated with a knowledge and a level of sanity that I don't think was in question. And therefore I think she should be convicted. What I hear from the women, now that that again, that woman talk of like, well, he was super arrogant. He was just a bad guy, talking about the 12th jury. They're just like, he was a meanie. He was a meanie. He just didn't want to see the light. The male that we just discussed, who the one with military service, he also said that the guy conceded
Charles: All right, whoa.
Jack Moore: the fact that reasonable doubt was available, but I'm still not going to do it. What?
Charles: no no. When they were talking about somebody being arrogant, they were talking about her attorney.
Jack Moore: No, they also talked about the twelfth attor the twelfth juror several
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: times. Go back and watch the film. I just played a part of it. Yeah. The one woman with the curly hair that was to the right, they were like, What did you think of that 12th jury show? He was just super arrogant. He was on his phone the whole night. We just kept trying to talk sense into him. You're right. She
Charles: So
Jack Moore: also said that the guy was arrogant and lovely, the defense attorney, but they also said that the
Charles: Okay.
Jack Moore: jury member was very arrogant and he didn't want to listen to reason. And yeah.
Charles: So here's there's another thing about this and I'll make this real quick.
Jack Moore: Yeah, yeah.
Charles: It's amazing how people's opinion changed when they found out it was a black guy.
Jack Moore: Well, I wasn't gonna bring this up and we're really
Charles: See.
Jack Moore: all right. Well, let me let me ask this because okay, man, the race thing always. And I just know people are sensitive to things. I just think things are fascinating. But 25 years ago, no, 30 years ago, 30 years ago, when I was working on my master's degree, I did work as a substitute teacher. Follow me on this. Just hear me out. So I'm working as a substitute teacher. This was the school where the young lady came up and said, I hated you at first. And then I really listened to what you had to say. And now you've made me feel better about I can do anything I want. So it was a school that minority was, it was like probably 60, 65% black in a rural area of North Carolina. And the teachers there were unbelievably liberal and would constantly tell them, you have no chance in life, the man's after you. I mean, I heard all this. So I really befriended a black female teacher there who wasn't liked by the establishment there, in large part because where she went to school versus where they went. It was a whole lot of stuff, right? So her and I would just have these talks. Like, why do the races see this is 30 years ago? And she would get into a lot of races see things differently and whatever. Believe me, the races see the same set of facts differently. And it's based upon culture. It's not. It's not anything genetically involved or race. It's just people grow up differently, they see the world differently. Could be religion, could be a lot of things. So she says that. She goes, I'll give you an example. And I, Charles, I did this. Exactly what she said. She said, black folks think that killing yourself is the ultimate unforgivable sin. White folks get into don't kill others. Like So if you're gonna be a mass shooter, that will set off the white person. The white person will lean more towards kill yourself first. Black folks do not see it the same way. And that's what she said. She goes, go test a class. Just go test the class. I go in the next class, it's like 30 students. And this is how I put it. There's like 30 students, 15, 15, 16, 14, 17, whatever. It's slightly more black than it is white, but these are kids. And I said, guys, which is the most unforgivable sin? Killing yourself or killing others. And Charles, every black kid said, No, no, no, you don't kill yourself. God has not forgiven that. You do not kill yourself. And the white kids were like, you should never kill others. Man, if everything's so bad, kill yourself. And I'm just saying, exactly what she said, exactly what she said is exactly how they were in the room. It's like across the board. It was down that cultural line. So I said that when I heard about this guy, I wondered about. Is his line, you don't kill your kids. You don't you don't do that. You don't kill your kids. You see what I'm saying? You don't see what I'm saying. You're you're staring at me funny.
Charles: Well, because technically the analogy that you you're using would be just the opposite.
Jack Moore: All right, well, knock it out. But I mean, they're there I okay. I'm asking you, we've known each other 30 years. We talk about race a lot. We grew up in the same state, but you know, there's just there's different things culturally that people do things differently to see the world differently. Would you think that when this woman told me in rural North Carolina that 30 kids that would be almost right down the line down race about kill yourself or kill others, do you think that's fair? That that might have been a read that was made. That seemed to have a racial line to it.
Charles: It with this juror?
Jack Moore: No, no, Charles, follow me. Let's just go the first one first. Because I've thrown this, I've thrown this grenade in the room. I've thrown the grenade. The black female teacher told me, black kids are going to tell you the unforgivable sin is to take your own life. White kids will be okay with it. But white kids are going to say, no, no, no, don't kill others. And when I asked 30 kids to a man and woman, the kids pretty much responded across racial lines. It was pretty much exactly what you said. So that being said, I'm asking, you've seen the demographics of the people who have come out and said he's the bad guy. And that's why in part some people have said it's a racial issue. What I'm saying is, what I'm saying I'm I'm just simply asking, could there
Charles: No, I think it's something else, man. It's something else. Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: have been a cultural divide there too, that a black male born of a certain time would have grown up in an environment like one thing you do? I know you're saying it's opposite to kill yourself, but I think it's kind of the same in this sense. If you kill your children, how is that not like the question was, you don't kill yourself? She told me the black kids would say, No, no, no, you don't kill yourself. The white kids are gonna be more okay with that. They're not gonna like the idea of killing others. How is it not different that a black male might have been f if he has that same worldview? Killing your kids is like killing yourself. You're shaking your head, no, go.
Charles: Well, because the an again the analogy if if she had said this this other educator that you were talking about, if you were specifically talking about children children 'cause technically you could use you could say that killing some random person that you don't know when you insert children into this, it's completely different.
Jack Moore: I think we're missing the point totally. And I'm I'm sorry that I brought it up because we've we've spent more time on it and maybe we'll just cut this whole thing out. But I'm making a point about I could see people, whether it's race, ethnicity, culture, nationality, whatever, that there's kind of a thing where you're like, one thing you don't do is kill your kids. You don't do that. And if that's a mindset this guy had, I'm simply saying he may have been on the jury, and it they're
Charles: Right. Yeah. Mm-hmm.
Jack Moore: like, they're coming up with. Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, women's rights, hooray, you know, thanks to the 19th Amendment. Whatever these things you've said about the way women see the world, now you have one black male, and he's like, No, no, no. One thing mama told me growing up is you don't kill your kids. I'm just saying, is that possible given the fact this young lady said when it came to comes to taking the lives of others versus taking your life, those kids are gonna see it differently. Now that was 30 years ago, and damn if she wasn't right, when I went into that room, that's exactly the reaction I got. What? Go.
Charles: But I guarantee she would have said if if you had inserted children into this, no, you you don't kill children. You kill yourself first. That's what she would have said.
Jack Moore: Okay, maybe. So I think we've gone way,
Charles: Yeah. I'm I'm just saying.
Jack Moore: we've gone way off stream. We've gone. I'm just saying what struck me, given that experience I had, when I heard they brought up his race, I said, I kind of wonder, given the fact that what this young lady told me 30 years ago, is it possible in his religion teachings, a religious religious teachings, what grandmother told him, what he learned at the Baptist church, whatever it was, you don't kill your kids. And he's sticking by that. That's all I'm saying. Like he doesn't want to hear the other nonsense and gobbledygook. He just knows you don't kill your kids without a penalty. That's all I'm saying. Where yeah.
Charles: I understand what you're saying. But I I do think that this is that's not the issue when it comes to this guy and the the him being revealed as a black guy is the issue. I think
Jack Moore: Why do you think he was revealed as a black guy?
Charles: Well, i i it's more so of the shock that he was a black guy because
Jack Moore: I wasn't shocked at all.
Charles: well, I think no, but there were a lot of people that were. A a whole lot of people, including myself. And
Jack Moore: Lot of people thought it would have been a white cons yeah. Okay. I I I yeah, I wasn't shocked.
Charles: and the reason I say that is because of the northern white liberal mentality that black people are supposed to go along with what they say. And he didn't. That's why
Jack Moore: What I
Charles: in a lot of people had saying that they had an issue with him because he would not go along with what they think is good for him.
Jack Moore: Sure. Well, okay. That brings up another heat of the canned worm, so I'm just getting as dangerous as we can get, but
Charles: That's fun.
Jack Moore: I think according to what that young lady told me too, do you not think it has been sort of an establishment liberal mantra
Charles: Mm.
Jack Moore: to sell the whole abortion thing? And one group of people who suffered the most from it have been the black community. Because there's a high
Charles: It's
Jack Moore: percentage of abortions being done by black women.
Charles: it's six times the amount as everybody else.
Jack Moore: Right. And don't you think don't you think when you go down to the Baptist church and the black folks I knew where I was growing up, there would have been a lot of ladies in there in that church that would not have bought that and they don't buy it today. You know, and they would not have been for that. They don't think that's right. So I don't think that go ahead.
Charles: No I I agree, but I don't think that's the case here. This is something else, man. The reason that they're they're sh the re
Jack Moore: you say something else. I'm making I okay, I'm making the point that I think acceptance of certain aspects as to the beginning of life, termination of life, and whatever runs different in white w liberal cultures.
Charles: Yeah, I agree with you. Yeah.
Jack Moore: Th I think it comes from that pretty much. There's a lot of on the white liberal culture where they would say like it's I I haven't seen as much in debates where it's anything other than a white female generally saying it's a lump of cells, it has no heartbeat at 20 days, all the different things. You know, when when the lifers are coming out, they're always basically pointing out it's a human life. The ones that try to break it down is a clump of cells, it's not, you know, it it it it's not this and that that they need it to be, tends to be. I think white liberals. I think, right? You might get a libertarian type every once in a while with that. So that's all I'm saying. I have seen black leaders who would probably agree politically more with you and I say there has sort of been a scourge upon the black population of selling that get an abortion every chance you get.
Charles: That that y are you saying that black quote unquote leaders would be against abortion?
Jack Moore: I'm saying there's a lot of black leaders that would agree with you and me personally. There are people a lot a lot of them clergy members, and they're like, Hey, wake up, black community. Liberals are teaching you to destroy life in your own womb.
Charles: I come I can tell you this. In the black community there's more of the ones that are saying that abortion is okay than there are to the to the opposite. I can tell you that for sure.
Jack Moore: Okay. You're say okay, you're saying you're saying they're okay, they're more of that, but would they not certainly be politically connected to probably one side of the the aisle more than the other? Right. That's that's what I'm saying. Well, and again,
Charles: It's usually the left. Yeah. Yeah.
Jack Moore: they're they're singing the song for okay. I don't know that it originated. I in other words, if we went back to nineteen sixty, the the the you know, it's it's twelve years prior to Roe v. Wade, do you give me the look, but prior I gotta I gotta it's it's birth control all right.
Charles: Good, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for this one. Yeah.
Jack Moore: Prior to birth control and abortion on demand, there were much less or there was much fewer out of wedlock births, both blacks and whites. It it totally escalated in the 60s for blacks. And then that's when Daniel Patrick Monaghan made the statement and he got called out for it. But I think in 1960, it was something like one in, think it was right around 25% of blacks were born outside of wedlock. And it was like three, five percent for something for whites. And by 1985, it was what, pushing 70% for blacks or something like that. And now it's like 35, 40% for whites, even today. So there's been this escalation. A lot of it has had to done with the end of marriage and abortion on command, birth control, and the like. So that being said, we have to kind of wonder how we got here, you know, who's pushing this. I I never really heard black leaders in the 60s. To my memory, that were fighting for abortion rights.
Charles: we can we can do another show on this. I could say this. There's a reason that
Jack Moore: Do you remember?
Charles: Martin Luther King pretty much was kicked out of the AME church because of it. Because he was pushing it.
Jack Moore: Okay, he was. Okay. Okay. All right.
Charles: Yeah. Yeah. So this this guy that they they try to put a halo on was pushing for abortion, he was pushing for gay rights and all that other good stuff. And the people in the church the
Jack Moore: Yeah, there's a bit a lot, yeah. Yeah.
Charles: people in the church are like, No, no, no, no. That's not what that's not what we do here and he's like, Yeah, but it's good for us and they're like, No, you gotta go.
Jack Moore: Yeah. Yeah. I I I actually watched a whole documentary on that the other day and and well it involved
Charles: Yeah.
Jack Moore: a black man in the clergy that broke away from him during the civil rights movement and it was for the very things you say and he he had a lot of
Charles: Mm.
Jack Moore: receipts to bring.
Charles: They had a they had a convention where it got so bad when he was bringing the stuff to the church at this convention before the before they kicked him out, people I think a guy died because he got into a r a fight, a a riot over this.
Jack Moore: Right. Yeah.
Charles: So to answer your question, there are a lot of black quote unquote leaders that are pushing this nonsense on the black community. They are. But again, that's why I said this isn't really, in my personal opinion, why the jurors had that opinion of this one guy. And I don't think that was why he did what he did. Their their opinion of this guy, in my personal opinion, 'cause Those liberal white women, I hate to say it, are how y you have to agree with us because you're black. No, I don't.
Jack Moore: No, I think that I think that there's a paternalistic view. It's like, come on, dude. We're white women. We're older white women. You're defin I guess they're older. I don't know. Maybe he's just as old. But I think you're right. There could have been a degree of you we are superior. Like we're the superior race. And when we tell you, step and fetch it, go get it now. We you you're supposed
Charles: Right.
Jack Moore: to be on board. And for you, like, do you know who we are? Do you know how much we've done for you or what? Yeah. I totally agree with that. I totally agree with that. But I still think
Charles: Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah.
Jack Moore: it might be brought about by a part. of how he was reared. I'd be interested in I'd be interested to know if like
Charles: No, I that to the side.
Jack Moore: if he was born in the South, even.
Charles: I mean, all that aside, I agree with what you're saying, that more than likely that was where he was drawing his opinion from. But I think that their opinion of him comes from what you just said. Really? Yeah.
Jack Moore: No, I agree. I totally agree. All right. Moore to consider. Please like and subscribe. Like, subscribe. Go on Spotify. Go on the Apple Podcasts. Write nice reviews and all that. Charles. Yes, sir. All right.
Charles: And YouTube. Yes. And argue. Tell us where we're wrong, please.
Jack Moore: Yeah, absolutely. Tell us where we're wrong. And this has been more to consider.
Charles: Yes.
Jack Moore: Thank you so much. Take care.