Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1391 | 3 Reasons Lindsay Clancy Is Absolutely Guilty

Starting point is 00:00:00 Here's a question that I have for Lindsay's defenders. Would you give all of these excuses to Lindsay if she hadn't killed her kids but your kids? She had the exact same story, the same background, the same struggle with mental health, the same struggle with all of these drugs that she was on, but she killed your kids. Would you say, eh, she's probably just going through a hard time. She was struggling, we need to raise more awareness about this and she shouldn't go to prison. If so, that's even just beyond where I can reach you. Empathy-based justice is not justice at all. It's partiality, which God calls evil.

Starting point is 00:00:45 Hey, y'all, welcome to relatable. Happy Wednesday. Wow, what a week. What a week in our justice system. The next couple of weeks we're going to have especially a lot to talk about. We always have a lot to talk about. But of course, next week marks one year since our friend Charlie Kirk was assassinated. That is also part of an update that we will give later in today's episode. I know it's a Wednesday. And typically I give this reminder on Mondays that God's eternal plan of redemption is going off without a hitch. But I feel like I need to be reminded daily, sometimes more than daily, that God is completely sovereign, that he is the perfect judge, that he never gets any verdict wrong. He's never wondering what the truth is or what really went on. He is not ever mistaken when it comes to righteousness and truth and justice.

Starting point is 00:01:35 and we can look forward to that day where we get to live in that reality forever. Right now, we still get to enjoy a really good justice system. And that's something that we're thankful for, that it is modeled after in large part the Old Testament law giving. You have rights as the accused. You have rights as the accuser. And even when we really don't like the accused or the accuser, we are thankful. We're thankful for that kind of setup and that kind of system.

Starting point is 00:02:04 And so pray that justice, earthly justice will prevail because despite how fallible and imperfect we are as unwise as we can be as humans, God has entrusted this responsibility of law giving and law enforcement and judgment to human beings, human systems and governments. I've seen kind of a lot of people say, well, it's not our job to judge. Yes, of course it's our job to judge. We see that modeled in the Old Testament, but we also see that. reiterated in Romans 13, that the government has actually been instituted by God to do justice, to punish the wrongdoer, to protect the innocent, to wield the sword against the evil doer.

Starting point is 00:02:46 And so we just pray this week that justice would be done, that wisdom would shine through because when justice is done on behalf of the innocent, that's something that glorifies God. And it's also something that should make us thankful as Christians. Now, if you feel like you are just waiting through absolute insanity and it is weighing you down and you feel burdened by the world specifically as women, I think that this has been like a hard look at the state of womanhood in America over the past couple of weeks as we've been talking about the reactions to the Lindsay Clancy trial. It seems like so many groups are just averse to impartiality, the impartiality that God

Starting point is 00:03:24 calls us to when we're making judgments. And so if you're like, okay, I need to be around sanity. I need to be around like-minded women. I need to be reminded that we can stand on the truth of God and that His eternal plan of redemption really is going off without a hitch. I invite you to share the arrows. Our annual women's conference, this is our third year, Dallas, Texas, October 10th. I only ever will invite biblical truth speakers to speak at this conference.

Starting point is 00:03:52 Everyone who works with me can tell you just how vigilant we are in ensuring that our lineup is going to be. to bring you the best and most biblical encouragement and teaching possible. And that's why we have Rosario Butterfield. Kostihan, Elisa Childers, Natasha Crane, Audrey Broge, Grace, Anna Castle, Barry. We'll be looking at how God redeems womanhood and how we can be agents of redemption as women in every sphere and the domestic sphere in our personal lives, and our friendships and the work that we are called to do.

Starting point is 00:04:24 Shane and Shane will be leading us in worship. I promise you, this will be a time of rejuvenation. and refreshment that you will be so grateful for. So go to share the arrows.com, get your tickets today. It's brought to you by our friends at WeHeart Nutrition. And just a tip also, you can use code Allie 20 and you'll get 20% off. And if you think your women's ministry or maybe you go to a Christian school, if you think the moms in your community or your homeschool community would enjoy

Starting point is 00:04:52 attending Share the Arrows, we have a special discount for you and you can reach out to us. All right, let's get into today's episode. So reminder that sanity exists, that God's sovereignty exists as we delve into the craziness of the Lindsay Clancy trial. Right now, as I'm recording this, as I'm recording this, we are still awaiting a verdict. And we wait whether or not we should even talk about it without the verdict. We're recording this on Tuesday. This comes out on Wednesday.

Starting point is 00:05:23 But all of the things that we're talking about today are so important. with or without the verdict, regardless of the verdict, all of these points that we're going through today, we have not yet discussed and really need a lot of clarity, especially for this Christian women audience. Now, as of Tuesday morning, as we're recording, after almost 18 hours of deliberation, the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked. They could not reach a decision, but Judge Sullivan just told them to keep deliberating. So the judge said to the jury this. I've got your question and the question is after many hours of deliberation, we are able to come to a, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. And he says, look, I brought you back out because I know

Starting point is 00:06:07 this was a long trial, 80 witnesses, 300 exhibits, but because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all of the instructions I gave you to go out and continue your deliberation at this time. So basically, they're like, look, boss, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the answer to. to this, I don't know how to figure this out. And he's like, you got to go back and try. And so they're working this out. I really wish I were in this jury. This would be fascinating. It'd be fascinating to be able to hear the discussions and everything that, everything that goes into that. So that's where we are right now. That in itself is a victory for the defense, that he has been able to convince the jury that it is debatable, whether or not,

Starting point is 00:06:55 not his client is criminally responsible for murdering her children after she admitted to doing so. That's pretty incredible that he has caused this much doubt and this much deliberation that it's taking them days to even decide. You could also see this in a more optimistic light on our side, those of us who do think that she is criminally liable, that, okay, at least it's not unanimous in favor of Lindsay. Obviously, there is some push and pull, some tug of war going on between these different jurors about really, maybe not what happened, but how responsible she is. Now, as a reminder about the arguments, the prosecutors argued that Lindsay Clancy carefully planned the killings, that she remained legally responsible for her actions, despite her mental

Starting point is 00:07:48 illness, they go through how she planned all of this, the steps that she took, the deliberate purposing and planning of every step of carrying out the execution of her children. And then the defense say, actually, she was suffering postpartum psychosis, which was not actually a diagnosis that she had, but that's what they are arguing. She had terrible medical care and all of that induced this, which is totally out of character for her. And she should not be found criminally responsible. I really encourage you especially to go back and listen to last week's episode.

Starting point is 00:08:27 We've done a few. But last week's episode, I talk about how my own mind and perspective has shifted on this. Not that I ever saw her as not responsible. Not that I ever saw her as the victim in this case. I've said from the very beginning, the children are the victims in this case. And we cannot lose sight of that. But I originally placed a lot of emphasis on these SSRIs and the other kinds of drugs that are meant to help with sleeping and psychosis, or actually not even

Starting point is 00:08:59 psychosis, but depression and mood disorders and things like that, come to find out, as we continue to watch this trial, she actually wasn't taking these drugs reliably. And so I have shifted away from emphasizing the importance of those drugs in the role of this murder and have instead looked at all of the planning and the purposeful steps she took to ensure that she could strangle her children in private. Now, during the closing arguments, Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, who has turned into on TikTok, this like women's rights champion, I have no idea what his background is. I don't know if any of these TikTokers know what his background is.

Starting point is 00:09:40 He's just doing his job. But he claimed in his closing arguments that she has a darn good mother who had never done anything wrong in her life. saw one. This young lady did nothing wrong in her life. She was a nurse, a daughter, a wife, and a darn good mother. All right. To be fair, I understand what point he's trying to make.

Starting point is 00:10:12 He's trying to say up until now, she had a spotless record. She had been perfect. Even Patrick Clancy testified that she had been a good mom. That's the point that he's trying to make. But it's a ridiculous statement to say. This is a woman who, again, trigger warning, she took her children down one by one into the basement, faced them down, overpowered them as they struggled, the injuries especially to the three-year-old boy demonstrate.

Starting point is 00:10:41 And she strangled them with exercise bans for the three to five minutes. That is required to kill someone in this way. Okay? and she did this after asking Patrick Clancy, her husband, to go run to errands. And apparently earlier that day, she had been researching the distance to these restaurants, the distance to the pharmacy, to supposedly to, I assume, see if she had enough time to complete this task. Okay, so to say that this woman never did anything wrong in her life and that she was a darn good mother, those statements have to be interpreted in light of how she ended her children's life.

Starting point is 00:11:23 And that's why it's ridiculous. I might kind of understand the spirit of what he is trying to argue, but that's just too far. I mean, that that elicits a guffaw from anyone, even if you think that she was someone who did this in some kind of, you know, psychosis-induced fit. All right, we've got more on this in just a second. Let me go ahead and pause. Let me tell you about our first sponsor. it is fellowship home loans. Mike and Brian, a fellowship home loans. They have been helping people financially in this way for 20 years. They have a servant-led mentality. They do everything by not only the book, but by the book, by the word of God. They'll look at your entire financial picture. Come back with options, Taylor fit to your financial needs. Whether that's paying off bills, taking cash back, reducing the term of your loan, or simply saving money monthly, you're going to have options. Rates hit a little.

Starting point is 00:12:16 earlier this year that most people missed. And now they're climbing back up. Every week they take higher the money you could save by refinancing, gets smaller and that window is closing. So go ahead and call them. See what your options are. Give yourself some wiggle room financially. Everything with Fellowship Home Loans is done in-house, one roof, one team.

Starting point is 00:12:35 Call for a free refinance review. $500 back at closing just for my listeners. Fellowshiphomeloans.com slash alley. Fellowship Home Loans, Mortgage Lending by the book, Nationwide Mortgage Bankers, DBA Fellowship Home Loans, Equal Housing Lender, NMLS number 8193-882. So many people are pointing out the composition of the jury when it comes to gender. And I wish this is not something that we even had to think about,

Starting point is 00:13:06 but apparently we do because when you look at support of Lindsay Clancy online, it is mostly women. It's largely women who are on TikTok, who are on Instagram, who are saying, you need to have compassion for this woman. And I know this because I see it on my timeline and I see it in my DMs. At one point, I thought it was pretty much like a left versus right issue. And I was like, okay, it makes sense to me that people who are for abortion would also dehumanize kids outside of the womb because the womb and birth is just kind of an arbitrary

Starting point is 00:13:39 standard for humanity and human dignity. And so it makes sense that someone who is pro abortion would, minimize the torture and the killing of these children and just say women's rights. But I have seen in my own inbox that it's not just liberal women. It's a lot of conservative women. I have lost many followers. I can't say thousands. It hasn't been thousands.

Starting point is 00:14:01 Hundreds, I would say, of followers over the past couple of weeks because of what I have been saying about this Lindsay Clancy case. I mean, women who are so set on. relating to her and relating to her struggles that they have completely forgotten about the plight of the victims. And when justice and judgments are rooted in how much we can relate to a person, how deeply we feel for a person, how badly we feel for a person, whether or not we have shared the same experiences as that person, that is partiality masked as compassion. okay and the god who delivered justice who created justice who gives us what law giving in a just way

Starting point is 00:14:50 looks like in the old testament he says you shall judge without partiality partiality is evil to the lord it's sin okay how we feel about any of the people involved in the case should be completely irrelevant but unfortunately we've seen especially women in the general public are having a very hard time getting out of their own situation, their own experiences, and their own feelings to just be able to rule this objectively. Okay. There's no place for that among women of God. I just want to say there's no place for that. I understand why someone who is an atheist and who thinks feelings rule why they would forego all standards of right and wrong, but for women of God, that should not be the case. Now, can we disagree on her liability based on the facts,

Starting point is 00:15:39 based on the arguments, yes, I think that's possible. It's hard for me at this point. She did admit to murdering her own children. But yes, of course, we can disagree without me accusing you of idolizing feelings. However, it would really depend on like, why do you think that she's not liable? Why do you think she's not responsible? Is it really based on facts or is it based on your own experiences? Is it based on what TikTok has said? A lot of women in my deal, I just want you to be really honest when you say, you haven't watched this trial. Have you watched the trial or have you watched Instagram? Have you watched the trial or have you watched TikTok?

Starting point is 00:16:20 That's not watching the trial. Like if you've been like me and you've been watching the sometimes boring trial on YouTube without any commentary, then you've watched the trial. That's what I've been doing. I'm not on TikTok. I've never logged into TikTok. And so I only know, because I see it on Instagram or people send it to me,

Starting point is 00:16:41 but be honest with yourself before you throw stones at me. All that to say, people are concerned about the makeup of this jury. There's nine women and three men. They have deliberated over three days. Also, there were two women who walked into the court this week, and they were wearing pink. Now, that could be a total coincidence. The jury's not supposed to know what's going on online.

Starting point is 00:17:06 They're not supposed to be influenced by outside voices. However, the women who have been standing outside the courthouse in support of Lindsay Clancy, which is just so hard for me to even comprehend, they are all wearing pink in support of her. Gosh, can you imagine? Whether or not you think that she was in some kind of forced mental state, like, how could you possibly be showing up and cheery pink in support of a child murder? It's insane. Now, a little bit more about the jury.

Starting point is 00:17:37 they, as we said earlier, they remain deadlocked. And if the jury does stay deadlocked, if they keep coming back to the judge and they're like, we cannot, we just can't come to a conclusion. The judge can declare a mistrial because of the hung jury. A hung jury is not an acquittal. It's also not a conviction. It simply means the jury was unable to reach unanimous verdict.

Starting point is 00:18:01 In that event, the charges remain pending and prosecutors must decide whether to retry the case. The jury has asked for several pieces of evidence, including medications that were introduced during the trial. The knife involved in Lindsay Clancy's suicide attempt and other physical exhibits. There's this horrible picture. I don't even want to show it, but speaking of the knife, I don't know if you guys have seen it go around. It's her bedside table and it has this bloody knife. The bedside table is bloody and then it's got this like to go wine cup.

Starting point is 00:18:34 And on it, it says because kids. Yikes. Now, a lot of people say, well, you know, that's just a joke. We can't judge her. There was also these Facebook posts and all of this stuff. And we'll get into some of that about Lindsay and her diary entries, just talking about how much she resented motherhood, how difficult motherhood was. And some people are saying, okay, but that's completely irrelevant. I don't think so. I think everything needs to be interpreted in light of the fact that she murdered her kids. If she hadn't done that, then yeah, you could say she's just part of toxic mommy culture, which I've been writing about and talking about for eight years at this point.

Starting point is 00:19:12 And not everyone who was involved with toxic mommy culture goes on to kill their kids, but probably everyone that kills their kids was involved with toxic mommy culture. And if you've got a wine glass that says because kids, then you were probably influenced by the cultural feelings of the day, which is that motherhood is the hardest thing ever and justifies drunkenness and all kinds of forms of escapism. So I just wanted to point that out because I see a lot of confusion

Starting point is 00:19:41 and even debate about whether things like that are relevant, I think they are. The jury has several possible verdicts available. Before the jury began deliberating last Thursday, the judge instructed jurors that in addition to the murder charges, they could also consider the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.

Starting point is 00:20:00 If Lindsay Clancy is convicted of first-degree murder, she faces a mandatory, sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Okay, so death penalty is not on the table. I know those of us who believe that the death penalty is just for murder, which God says it is, Genesis 9, and so who am I to go against the God who created justice? But that's like a lot of us are saying, yes, the death penalty should always be on the table for someone who commits this kind of crime. It's not on the table here. If she is convicted of second degree murder, she will receive a life sentence with the possibility of parole.

Starting point is 00:20:36 If the jury instead convicts her a voluntary manslaughter, she faces up to 20 years in prison for each count of manslaughter, up to 60 years total in prison with the possibility of parole. So she would. I mean, if she goes to prison for 60 years, I find that very unlikely. She would die in prison. I think she's in her late 30s. So that would be her face. Now, if she is found not guilty by reason of lack of lack of,

Starting point is 00:21:04 lack of criminal responsibility, Clancy would likely be committed to a secure psychiatric hospital until a court determines she is no longer mentally ill and dangerous. Now, the strange thing is I remember, because I actually did watch the trial, Kevin Reddington, her attorney, saying, well, she hasn't heard any voices since then. She has been sleeping great since then. She's been mentally stable and mentally secure since then. And then there was also some, like other chatter in the court about her possibly being on the brink of suicide. So it's kind of strange, like what is actually the assessment of her mental state. But if it is true that she is generally stable, she's not going to be in a psychiatric hospital for very long. So that basically

Starting point is 00:21:50 is freedom. I think in the beginning we thought, oh, she'd be committed to psychiatric hospital forever. Well, if you're found not guilty, you can't be committed to basically jail forever. I don't think that would be just if you were truly found not guilty. She's not going to go to a psychiatric hospital for very long. She's just not. So if she is found not guilty, there's no justice. There's no punishment for her crime. The jury could also return a traditional not guilty verdict, in which case Clancy would simply be released. I really don't see that as that different as her going to a psychiatric hospital. If I were to guess, I think it's, going to be manslaughter, or I think it's going to be not guilty by reason of lack of criminal

Starting point is 00:22:38 responsibility. Outside the courtroom, defense attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters that Clancy is very sad and scared as she awaits the jury's decision. This is also something that I just like don't really understand because if I committed a horrible, horrible crime, say I had really been in psychosis. Okay? And I had done this horrible thing. Send me to prison for life. Like give me the utmost punishment because I would not be able to live with myself

Starting point is 00:23:11 and because I love my children so much that I would want justice for them. I would not want to be free. I would not want to enjoy life. I would not want to be liberated if I had committed this crime, even if I had done so under the influence of drugs. Okay, so this idea that she's so sad for herself, she's so scared for herself because she wants to be ruled not guilty so she can go and live on and be outside of prison. I find that suss. I just do.

Starting point is 00:23:42 Like I said, there is this idea that Reddington, the defense attorney, is some feminist icon. Here's a woman saying, you're our voice. I had my mental health weaponized against me and family court. I had an issue whenever my son was postpartum, or whenever I was postpartum, my second son was eight months old. You hear the voice. So I know what Kelly went for. Sorry, Lindsay went through. I know what she went through.

Starting point is 00:24:09 I feel it. The idolatry here is just, it's just very disturbing. I saw this post originally on X, and then I've seen it recreated by a few accounts. And there was an Instagram post. I think it was Freedom Center from Liberty University. And they were quoting the passage from the Bible where the mob of people are saying, give us Barabbas, give us Barabbas in exchange for Jesus.

Starting point is 00:24:41 We want Jesus to be crucified. We want Barabbas, this thief, to be released. And then the examples that they gave were Tyler Robinson, Lindsey Clancy, Carmelo, Anthony, these are all people who, by a segment of our culture, have been elevated to the point of innocence or to the point of actually being a hero. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. I mean, how sick are we when even those who profess to be believers cannot agree that murder is always wrong. Murder, I mean, some people will say, well, that's not what the debate is about. The debate is

Starting point is 00:25:25 about who actually did it. Okay, then we should be able to agree on evidence. We should be able to agree on truth. We should be able to agree on logic. We should be able to agree on some basic fundamentals of how to actually seek truth that is not just peddling conspiracy theories. Christians should be the most reasonable people in the world. And unfortunately, I don't think that's the case in a lot of these situations right now online. All right, we've got our argument, our three reasons why Lindsay Clancy should be found guilty in just a second. Let me pause. Let me tell you about WeHeart Nutrition. WeHeart Nutrition, like I said, is sponsoring Share the Arrows this year. We love WeHeart Nutrition. I love them personally. I love Jacob

Starting point is 00:26:09 and Kristen, the couple that started WeHeart Nutrition, their parents of five beautiful kids, and they started We Heart Nutrition because women and men, but especially women that started it out is just supplements for women. We need, especially through pregnancy and postpartum and so many different stages of our life, we need the kind of support in our supplements that really works, that our bodies can really absorb. We need ingredients that come in the most, in the most bioavailable form so our bodies can actually take it in. And we can actually be healthier and feel better. And that's what I found in we heart nutrition. I feel so much better at this pregnancy that I have in previous pregnancies. And this is baby number four. You usually feel.

Starting point is 00:26:49 more and more tired as each pregnancy goes on, but I feel better. And I think it's because I found these supplements in between my last baby and this one, and I have enough iron. I have enough magnesium. I have enough vitamin C and D. And my body actually is absorbing it. And I'm so thankful for that. They've got so many different kinds of supplements. They've got wholesome balance for your hormones. They've got immunity support. They have min's vitamins too. Check them out. Go to weheartnutrition.com. Use code alley for 20. percent off. Weheartnutrition.com code Allie. All right. So let's get into my three reasons for why I believe Lindsay Clancy to be not just guilty of doing it. We should all know that she did it. Okay.

Starting point is 00:27:37 She admitted that she did it. Everyone's admitting that she did it. Her defense attorneys are not arguing that she did not do it. The question is, is she criminally liable? So did Lindsay Clancy's mental illness actually render her not criminally responsible? Second question, does the evidence point to a psychotic episode or does it point to careful planning? And then third question, should the jury place more weight on the analysis of doctors who treated Lindsay before the killings or an expert who evaluated her after the fact? I believe if you answer those three questions honestly that the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction, Lindsay Clancy should be found guilty, criminally responsible.

Starting point is 00:28:19 I wasn't completely sure of that in the very. beginning. Because as I was going through all of these medications that she was on and their interactions and their side effects, and I was looking at the things Patrick Clancy was saying, it just seemed like, wow, this was some freak event. But again, as the trial has gone on, as I've watched the trial, as I've seen the arguments presented, as I've seen the disposition of each attorney and just how unnecessarily condescending and dismissive and very many times illogical the defense is. As I weigh all of the evidence that is presented, I have, I don't even want to see completely changed my mind because it was never out of the realm of

Starting point is 00:29:02 possibility that she was totally liable. But I have certainly shifted much harder into the direction that, yes, she is guilty. So reason number one, mental illness is not the same thing as legal insanity. Okay, really important point. Even if someone is mentally ill, which she might have been, as most people who kill people are, as most people who kill their own children are, like you're probably not doing well mentally. Jeffrey Dahmer, probably not super sane. Ted Bundy, probably not the most mentally composed guy. Yes, if you are going on a killing rampage, especially one as relentless as this one, you probably are not firing on all cylinders mentally, of course. But if we were to dismiss every person who had some kind of mental illness

Starting point is 00:29:52 as not being criminally liable, then most of our prisons would be empty. And that wouldn't be a good thing. We'd be a lot less safe. Mental illness is not the same thing as legal insanity that invalidates any of your responsibility. So this case is really not about whether Lindsay Clancy was suffering mentally. Nearly everyone agrees that she was. I agree that she was from the things that she wrote, from the things that people say she was struggling. That's not a question. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague said it in closing. There is no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was mentally ill and that she tried to kill herself, sought to. There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering for mental illness and that she tried to kill herself. There's no dispute about that. All of the evidence that you've heard,

Starting point is 00:30:40 Even the experts that the Commonwealth put before you say that she was suffering for mental illness and she tried to kill herself. That's not the issue in this trial. The issue is whether at the time she killed Cora, Dawson, and Callon. She knew the difference between right and wrong and whether she could conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. This case is not about our mental health system or how it treats women. or what's in the DSM-5 and what's not, that's a distraction to get you angry and passionate about an important issue, but an issue that's not on trial here.

Starting point is 00:31:20 What the issue is here is what Lindsay Clancy did the night of January 24th, 2023, and what her mental state was at the time. I see a lot of people saying that the prosecution did a bad job, and, you know, I think it's just true that in every situation, you can look from the peanut gallery and say, they should have said this, they should have argued this, they should have done this. I actually think the defense and prosecution both did their jobs well. They both did what they were hired to do sufficiently.

Starting point is 00:31:51 And I, you know, for anyone who, you know, says from the outside, you should have done this or you should have said this. Well, there's probably a lot of things that we don't understand. At the end of the day, I do think the prosecution made a sound argument. So that's important to note that being mentally ill is not the same thing. is losing all criminal responsibility because you are insane. Another common argument is that Lindsay wasn't responsible because she didn't receive enough treatment or support,

Starting point is 00:32:21 but the evidence presented at trial paints a totally different picture. The prosecution notes this in her closing argument. She says that Lindsay had health insurance that covered multiple psychiatrists, specialty mental health programs treatment at South Shore Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, voluntary stay, and a clean hospital. prescription coverage for the many medications her doctors tried, she had 18 weeks of maternity leave with the option to extend it. Is it possible for someone to still be overwhelmed and have all of

Starting point is 00:32:51 that support? Yes, that's beside the point. What she's saying is that those who are arguing that everyone failed her, everyone in her life failed her, abandoned her, she was crying out for help, she didn't get help. She got a ton of help. And some argue that she was actually doctor shopping. Some would argue that she had been planning this whole thing for a long time, and she wanted to show really how sick and unstable she was by trying to get all of these different medications. But the truth is, is that she got support. We can see that.

Starting point is 00:33:20 The evidence shows that. She had support from both her family and Patrick's family. That has been brought up multiple times by witness testimony on both sides. Her two older children were in preschool three and a half days a week. This is previously, this is before the killings happened. And the family had a nanny who cared for Callan three mornings a week while also helping with housework and meal preparation. Again, from the timeline that I've studied, that was previously.

Starting point is 00:33:46 That was prior to the killings, not at the same time of the killings. But that point is still important. That it's not like she was just left to carry this burden for years and years on her own. People are pointing out that it's nefarious that Patrick let the nanny go after she decided to stay home from work. But I don't find that nefarious. I find that to be very logical. She claims, or the claim is that she wanted to stay home from being a nurse because she didn't want to be away from her kids. Okay, well, then you fire the nanny who would be watching the kids while you are away from them. So I don't think that that's a strange thing, that even if she said she was overwhelmed,

Starting point is 00:34:28 that when she decided to not go back to work, that they fired the nanny. I don't find that to be malicious at all. None of that means that Lindsay was not suffering, as I said, but it does mean that she had access to far more treatment and practical help and family support than many people struggling with serious mental illnesses. And I understand that a lot of people have villainized Patrick Clancy largely based on vibes. Some people say it's based on some kind of mismatched a mismatched alibi or that his story doesn't match up. Again, most of you all are getting that from TikTok, not from actually watching the trial.

Starting point is 00:35:08 But he apparently, even according to her own diary entries, even according to witness testimony, he was supportive. Like he was there. He was actually trying to help. I have no idea if he was a perfect husband. That's not what's on trial here. And I'm not even saying that her being a perfect mom. is what's on trial. I'm just saying this argument that she didn't have enough mental

Starting point is 00:35:32 illness support and therefore it's everyone else's fault except for hers. It just doesn't hold up. It's just not true. And even if it were true, I don't think that makes her not liable. Now here's a question that I have for Lindsay's defenders. My question is this. Would you show the same mercy to Lindsay if she had killed your children? What do you feel the same deep empathy for her mental struggles. Would you opt for keeping her out of prison because, well, she was having a hard time mentally and she had been taking pills on and off? Probably not. Hopefully not. I'm just afraid that too many women left and right think justice is dictated by how deeply we can relate to the people involved. Because some of you can see yourself

Starting point is 00:36:21 in Lindsay's depression or anxiety and can't relate to her children, you feel compelled to defend her. Now, before commenting, defensively, I just want you to stop for a second and really consider whether that's true. Because after I posted that, I got a bunch of messages from people saying that changed my mind. Thinking about it that way, completely changed my perspective. So if we're going to go by how we feel, stop for a second. And would you give all of these excuses to Lindsay if she hadn't killed her kids but your kids? She had the exact same story, the same background, the same struggle with mental health, the same struggle with all of these drugs that she was on,

Starting point is 00:37:00 but she killed your kids. Would you say, eh, she's probably just going through a hard time. She was struggling. We need to raise more awareness about this, and she shouldn't go to prison. And if so, that's even just beyond where I can reach you. Empathy-based justice is not justice at all.

Starting point is 00:37:19 Again, it's partiality, which God calls evil. We don't make these decisions based on whether or not we can relate to someone. The question is, was Clancy legally responsible? Under Massachusetts law, someone is criminally responsible if, despite any mental illness. They still had the substantial capacity to, one, understand what they were doing was wrong, and two, to control their actions. A person is found not criminally responsible only if a mental disease or defect deprived them of one or both of those capacities. So the defense's burden is not simply to show that Lindsay suffered from some mental condition.

Starting point is 00:37:57 It is to persuade the jury that her mental illness rose to the extraordinary level required for a verdict of not criminally responsible. And as we're going to see, the evidence strongly supports the idea that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible. Reason number two, we think she's guilty. The evidence points to planning and purposeful action. We'll get to that in just a second. Let me pause.

Starting point is 00:38:21 Let me tell you about seven weeks coffee. So thankful for seven weeks coffee, they allow you. your caffeine to serve a higher purpose. If you're getting caffeinated in the morning, you might as well make sure that you are buying coffee. That is donating 10% of every sale to pregnancy centers across the country. That is such an amazing endeavor. And it's been successful.

Starting point is 00:38:42 They have raised $2 million for these pregnancy centers. That's translated into saving thousands of baby lives. Their coffee is really high quality. It's great tasting. It's sustainably sourced. It is clean. It's pesticide free. it's mold-free.

Starting point is 00:38:55 You might not have even known all those things can be in your coffee beans, but they are. So if you want really high quality, if you want that higher purpose coffee that is saving babies, then get your coffee from seven weeks. Go to seven weeks coffee.com, save 15% forever when you subscribe. Plus, when you use my code Alley, you save an extra 10%. That's seven weeks coffee.com code Alley. The evidence points to planning and purposeful action. So if the question is whether Lindsay was legally responsible, what evidence should we examine?

Starting point is 00:39:29 Let's talk about what she actually did that afternoon. According to NBC Boston, that afternoon before the murders, her phone shows a search for children's Mirlax around 402. She had taken her daughter to the doctor earlier that day. And so this makes sense that in and of itself, I don't think is suspicious. And then a search for takeout from 3V restaurant around 413.

Starting point is 00:39:49 Then an Apple map search for how long it would take for Patrick to do these pickups. Now, again, without the fact that she murdered her kids, that could all seem innocent. She could have just been looking to see how far it would take and how long, you know, 3V, how far away it was from the CVS. Does this route make sense? But the fact that she killed her kids while Patrick was gone,

Starting point is 00:40:14 that's suspect. The choice of restaurant is important because it was not, it was one the family did not ever, not my notes say usually, but it's actually ever used for takeout. Patrick testified that they normally used closer place, like chestnut grill or West End grill. They had eaten at 3V before,

Starting point is 00:40:32 but they had never gone there for takeout. After this, Lindsay added a CVS stop, called to confirm the Mirallax Substitute was in stock, and sent Patrick out at about 515 while he was at CVS. She missed his call and called back at 534. This was while she was in the midst of the killings. The timeline goes, but according to Patrick, she was quiet.

Starting point is 00:40:54 She sounded busy. And this just made him think that she was doing something. like giving the kids a bath because he said, yeah, she sounded distracted, but, you know, of course, she always sounded distracted when three kids are home. So she picked up the call, was apparently very calm, was able to be of sound mind while talking to Patrick and then went about her business. Now, this does not point to a woman having an uncontrollable psychotic break, but to someone who was carefully planning out a sequence of events so she would have enough time to complete the murders. There was an expert witness for the process.

Starting point is 00:41:28 prosecution whose testimony we didn't get to play last week, whose name was Dr. Gregory Solthoff, or Sauthoff, a forensic psychiatrist who works with the FBI's behavioral analysis unit. He highlights Clancy's planning and timing. And these clips are a little bit long, but some of these witnesses are long-winded and we really just wanted to include all of the context, the three. The planning involved prior to the the strangling over children, I thought was significant. The searches for distance of 3V, the searches of CVS, all done prior to her sending fairly late in the afternoon a text asking her husband if he didn't mind take out from 3B,

Starting point is 00:42:32 and then adding on. There was a window of time that Ms. Clancy was aware of in which she would need to kill her three children as well as to kill herself, which she expected would happen. Okay. Then there's the problem of all of the decisions that had to be made in the killings. Each child, it's so hard to keep saying this, but was individually strangled with exercise bans.

Starting point is 00:43:06 And so this wasn't an act of momentary rage. This was something that required a lot of strength and a lot of persistence. Like, I think people don't want to consider that, which I completely understand, especially if you're a mom, no one wants to think about that. But she took them down one by one. She thought about the fact, okay, maybe I don't want them to see what's happening. I don't want them to run and go get help.

Starting point is 00:43:30 I don't want them to, maybe the oldest had even the ability to make a phone call or run to a neighbor. Or maybe it was just I don't want them to see this happening. Whatever it was, she didn't do it all at once. She put them face down too. So she wouldn't have to look in their eyes and they wouldn't have to look at hers. That is someone who is thinking. So all of this demonstrates repeated purposeful action rather than a single impulsive act. Dr. Kirk Heilbrin, a clinical and forensic psychologist and Drexel University professor,

Starting point is 00:44:01 argued that Lindsay Clancy's description of just following the voice is very difficult. He said extremely difficult to reconcile with the series of choices required to carry out the killings. he said that voices, when someone is suffering psychosis, very, very rarely. He didn't say never, but in these type of settings, you typically don't say never or always. But very, very rarely does that voice just occur once and then go away. Now, as we have noted in the past, he is not going to consider the possibility of a demonic voice. And I don't even think you're allowed to bring that into a case like this. Of course, we know that that is possible, but demonic influence would negate someone's criminal responsibility again. You'd have empty prisons if that were the case.

Starting point is 00:44:50 According to Clancy, the voice told her only, this is your last chance. You have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself. That's according to CBS Boston. But the alleged voice never described how to carry out the killings. And so again, why choose this method that required so much persistence, endurance, and strength and cruelty. And the testimony of Sothoff, I don't think that we have this. But one thing that he said in his testimony was that every human has a will to survive. And children have a very strong will to survive. And if you look at the injury report, the autopsy, especially from the three-year-old Dawson,

Starting point is 00:45:39 he has very serious bruising that is consistent with trying to run away and being grabbed and being forced down and being forced to lay still as he was desperately trying to escape. Now, this is the same child that she had complained about publicly on mom groups on Facebook saying he is the most difficult child or a different, difficult person I have ever encountered. Now, again, some people say, well, you can't judge her for saying that she was reaching out for help. I can actually because she ended up murdering him. If she hadn't done that, maybe I wouldn't judge her for saying something that I actually don't think that you should ever say publicly about your children, but maybe I would have

Starting point is 00:46:21 less judgment, but she murdered him. So I think that we have a right to righteously judge everything that she said about these children. Dr. Howbrin lays out why he thinks this was a deliberate plan. She talked about feeling like it wasn't her, like she was, watching herself, like she was going through what she called no thinking, no decision-making, only responding to the voice and taking action. And when she said that there was no decision-making involved, did you see anything in the records or in her detailing of what happened that was

Starting point is 00:47:03 inconsistent with that claim, that there was no decision-making? Yeah, this is different. but important to say that there are just many ongoing decisions that have to be made to accomplish a killing like this in 18 to 20 minutes. For example, why the basement? Who among the children goes first? What do you say to the kids to keep them from panicking? What to use to strangle the children? Is that a decision that has to be? be made? Yes, it is. The order in which to strangle the children, is that a decision that has to be made? That's another example of the decision, yes. Decisions. And the way in which to kill herself was that were those decisions that had to be made. Yes, they were. Now, just a minute ago,

Starting point is 00:48:00 I said that in these cases, you don't hear these people saying always never. But actually, this doctor with 50 years of experience in this realm does say something about something never happening when it comes to psychosis. Listen to this, SOT 6. Is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice only one time, never before, never after? No. And again, based on your training experience, is it typical for someone in psychosis to hear a voice that's constant rather than intermittent. No, that is not typical.

Starting point is 00:48:47 An intermittent voice would come and go. It wouldn't necessarily just keep playing over and over again, as if it were on a tape, which Ms. Clancy told me that it was a voice. It's the same thing. in the same tone repeated over and over and over until she had strangled count. Committing the act is not curative of the voice. I've not ever seen that. Based on your training experience, someone in psychosis, hearing a voice without accompanying

Starting point is 00:49:33 delusions, is that typical? that would be pretty rare. So he does say, I've not ever seen that. I've not ever seen that in his many decades of doing this work. He has never seen that committing the act that the voice tells you to commit cures the voice and makes it go away. And apparently in Lindsay Clancy's situation, it did. So when you look at this complex sequence of decisions required to carry out the killings

Starting point is 00:50:06 combined with the fact that Clancy cannot keep her story straight about the voices, the most plausible explanation is that she made up the story about the voice afterward. Or maybe it was just an intrusive thought that she has decided, oh, well, actually, this was a voice telling me what to do. Now, of course, the defense strongly disagrees with that conclusion. Their case depends on medical experts who believe that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis. And this raises an important question, which doctors,

Starting point is 00:50:36 should the jury believe? Should they believe the doctors who say, yes, she was in psychosis? Should they believe the prosecution's doctors, which is we played last week, said, that's not what psychosis is. Psychosis happens in the weeks after giving birth, not several months after giving birth. Let's go to number three. Medical evidence at the time is stronger than hindsight opinions. The medical evidence that she had at the time from the doctors that have been treating her prior to the killings. That is stronger than hindsight opinions. We'll get into this in just a second.

Starting point is 00:51:12 Let me tell you about crowd health. The health insurance industry just doesn't seem built to actually care for families. It's so complicated. It's expensive, especially when you need to find real care. And in those moments, when you just want someone in your corner, it feels like the system is working against you. And that is why crowd health exists. They put the care back in health care with community focused, low cost alternative.

Starting point is 00:51:34 It's what we use. out of health insurance because of the reasons I just listed. And we have loved crowd health. It's been super effective for us. It's a community of people who have decided to stop letting profit-driven insurance companies call the shots. Instead of networks and restrictions, you get freedom. Personal care advocates who fight for you,

Starting point is 00:51:51 bill negotiators who slash what you owe, prescription discounts, and a database to help you find great, affordable doctors if you need them. No one ever pays more than their set maximum. Members crowd fund eligible bills with a 99.9% funding success rate in just seven days typically. Be part of a community focused on advocating for your family's health. Join crowd health to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months

Starting point is 00:52:14 using code alley at join crowdhealth.com. That's join crowdhealth.com code alley. Crowdhealth is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. So which doctors should be believed? Defense doctors, prosecutions, doctors, or the doctors that treated her before.

Starting point is 00:52:38 What the prosecution claims is supported by Lindsay's doctors who treated her at the time. She was depressed, but not psychotic. And she wasn't at the point where she couldn't control her actions. But it's important to note that much of what the defense claims that Lindsay killed her children because of psychosis brought on by postpartum depression relies on medical diagnoses made after the killing. So this is a point that I've made multiple times. and I have had people all in my comments, all in my inbox saying that this is not true, but unable to provide the contrary evidence.

Starting point is 00:53:15 Lindsay Clancy was never diagnosed with postpartum psychosis. She was never even diagnosed with postpartum depression or anxiety. That's the truth. She was diagnosed with an unspecified mood disorder, which is a form of depression. I'm not saying that she was mentally well. I'm not saying that she was doing okay. But if we are going to use medical terminology, we should probably get it right. And when I've said she was never diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, I've got so many people saying,

Starting point is 00:53:41 that's just not true, that's just not true. Okay, show me the evidence. Show me the evidence. When has that ever been claimed? That's never even claimed by the defense. It's claimed that she had it. It is not claimed that she was diagnosed with it. In fact, their argument is that she should have been diagnosed with it.

Starting point is 00:53:57 Okay, well, she wasn't. And she had several different doctors. And she had different hospital stays, lots of psychiatric care. And not one of them, not one of those medical providers, not one of those hospitals said, yeah, this woman is suffering from psychosis. So they are relying on their expert witnesses to diagnose her retroactively. Lindsay Clancy did seek help. She did for insomnia, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, suicidal ideation.

Starting point is 00:54:28 She underwent a five-day voluntary stay at McLean earlier in January, 2023. and so that was right before, actually, she killed her children. None of the doctors, bears repeating, who actually treated Clancy at the time, recorded any evidence of psychosis or auditory hallucinations or gave a diagnosis of postpartum depression. Clancy psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, who had treated her since 2022, said in her testimony that Lindsay was, quote, very clearly not psychotic, included in the period leading up to January 24th, and that the day before the kill

Starting point is 00:55:03 Clancy denied suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Okay. Dr. Alia, I think that's how you pronounce her name, Goodhart, who oversaw Clancy's admission to McLean Hospital in January 2023, diagnosed major depressive disorder without psychotic features. So specifically, like, that's the diagnosis, major depressive disorder without psychotic features. She testified that she saw no signs of psychosis and had no concern that Clancy was a danger to others. There was also no evidence presented at the trial that any of Clancy's treating physicians formally diagnosed her with postpartum depression. At women in infant's hospital, clinicians specifically concluded that she did not have postpartum depression. Wow. Okay, the hearing voices portion. The prosecution experts

Starting point is 00:55:50 noted that none of Lindsay Clancy's treating providers documented reports of an auditory command hallucination before the killings. Her description of a male voice commanding her to kill her children first appeared after the crime and was totally inconsistent with her contemporaneous medical records. Dr. Jennifer Tuft's reminder, she was a psychiatrist that had treated Clancy since 2022, testified that she was not hearing voices. Dr. Avram Mack, we talked about him last week, a psychiatrist, expert witness for the prosecution, also testified that he found no evidence of psychosis in Lindsay Clancy's contemporaneous medical records.

Starting point is 00:56:28 I would ask whether the reports indicated that she had completely, of hearing voices, he answered, she complained about intrusive thoughts. Now, intrusive thoughts, not the same thing as hearing voices. Okay, those are voices in your own, those are thoughts in your own voice. And you might hear things or think things that you don't want to think. And that actually is very normal postpartum. Now, typically it's not, it doesn't lead you to do horrible things, but it might be like, oh my gosh, what if a hawk comes and snatches my baby out of the backyard? Like, it's things like that that are totally irrational, but you do become almost irrationally protective of your child and you fear for their danger, that happens and is very common

Starting point is 00:57:06 in postpartum depression and anxiety. So she had complaint of intrusive thoughts, but again, just having intrusive thoughts, which is pretty common, is not an excuse for murder. It doesn't typically lead to murder. So to sum up, the defense's central theory of the case depends on symptoms and diagnoses that are absent from Lindsay's contemporaneous medical record. The doctors who actually evaluated Lindsay Clancy before the killings, documented depression, anxiety, insomnia, intrusive thoughts, suicidal ideation. So again, not doing well, but they did not diagnose psychosis. And the entire case of the defense rests on her being actually psychotic. Okay, we use the adjective a lot, but really clinically psychotic to where she was so

Starting point is 00:57:49 out of her mind that she could not be held responsible for what she was doing because it was basically like someone else had possessed her body and committed these crimes. But that's not true. She wasn't diagnosed with that. She wasn't diagnosed with postpartner depression. They did not document reports of auditory command hallucinations. Those diagnoses came later after the killings had already occurred as the defense started building its case. You can, of course, think multiple things at once, that these SSRIs, that the drugs that they were, that she was on, they weren't good for her, that she shouldn't have been on them. Okay, I agree with you. I've done many episodes over the years. on SSRIs. I've had many expert guests on. I've had Dr. McPhelan on. I've had, I've had Dr.

Starting point is 00:58:38 Yosef on. And a lot of you are sending me their stuff. Look, I still respect them a lot. And I would still have them back on to talk about these things that are really important. I don't think the evidence supports the arguments that they're making right now, that these drugs had enough of an influence on her to not make her criminally responsible. Because again, then you're taking away the criminal responsibility of a lot of people. There's a lot of murderers that are on SSRIs. And that's bad. That's a problem with SSRIs. It doesn't mean that these people shouldn't get punished for their crimes. I think a lot of it has to do with a confusion about like what justice actually is. Oh, those kids are with God. Oh, she's suffered enough. Oh, she's paralyzed. No, no, no.

Starting point is 00:59:20 Justice is not about the victims actually being able to tangibly see the person that wronged them get punished. It is about the representation. of value of the person that was wronged. That is what the punishment is meant to be proportionate to. So when you take a life, you get the utmost punishment because those lives mattered so much. That is actually the justification that we read in Genesis 9. When God commands Noah, he says, look, there's going to, I'm paraphrasing, obviously, there's going to be a death penalty if someone commits murder.

Starting point is 00:59:58 What is the reason that he gives? because man is made in my image. Because man is made in God's image. And so therefore, murdering someone is the worst thing that you could do. And therefore, the only proportionate punishment for murdering an image bearer of God is execution. And so justice really is about human dignity and recognizing human dignity. Yes, protecting the public. Yes, just punishment.

Starting point is 01:00:26 People think that punitive justice isn't justice at all, always has to be restored. that's just not true. Like, punitive justice is actually fine. Like, people should be punished for doing wrong things. It's also a deterrent for other people. And so I don't know what's going to happen with this. I think it's clear at this point. I wasn't so clear on it a month ago.

Starting point is 01:00:47 But now with everything that we see in all of the testimony that we have access to and all of the evidence that we have, it's really, really hard for me how someone could come to a different conclusion other than Lindsay Clancy is 100% responsible for the murder of her children. All right, we've got a little bit more to talk about. Let me pause and tell you about our last sponsor. It is NetSuite. Every day your business is late to AI.

Starting point is 01:01:14 You fall two days behind. How do you keep up? The competition is only moving faster. Fortunately, there is NetSuite next. You know about NetSuite? I've been talking about them for a while, the AI-powered business management suite that securely connects all of your data. It's a unified suite that brings your finances,

Starting point is 01:01:29 your inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth, trusted by over 43,000 customers. NetSuite Next is the next huge leap in how business gets done because AI is built into everything you do, automatically surfacing custom insights throughout your day. AI agents work alongside you to solve problems and handle routine work. Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions a year, it's time for NetSuite Next when your business meets AI. For the first time ever, you can try NetSuite Next for free. If your revenues are at least of the seven figures, go to net suite. A.I slash Alley.

Starting point is 01:02:02 Built for every industry, ready for every boardroom, net suite. dot A.I slash alley. All right, before we get into Lifestyle Pitterpatter, I know we're going from something very serious to something not so serious, but I do want to get into that topic. I just want to remind you, again,

Starting point is 01:02:22 what's happening with the Tyler Robinson trial, the preliminary hearing. It's continuing. As I'm recording this, I don't know whether or not the judge is going to say, yes, this is going to trial. My guess is that that is going to be. be the case. Pray for Erica, as they're having to relive this, pray for Erica also as we're going

Starting point is 01:02:39 into next week and we're looking at a year since Charlie was assassinated, pray for his kids. My goodness, like, it is still so incredibly fresh for them every single morning when they wake up, every single night when they go to sleep. Pray again for justice in this case. And pray for truth to prevail. Pray for strength for her that the Lord would continue to use her and give grace to her and use her testimony for his glory. All right, let's take a pause for a second. We talked about a lot of really heavy stuff that's really important. We are going to talk about Oreo Gate.

Starting point is 01:03:15 First, let's take a look at Hillary Clinton and me. If you don't know why you're seeing a picture of Hillary Clinton and I baking cookies, I don't have time to explain it. Okay, it was a crazy day. I don't know how I ended up there either. Okay, let's talk about Oreo Gate. Do you know what I'm talking about? you're a mom online, you probably do, or maybe you've been living under a rock, which is totally

Starting point is 01:03:45 fine too. So there is a school mom's group chat that is going viral. Now, is it real? I don't know. You can ever verify these things. Is this like a real group chat or is this rage bait? Is this something that was planted to go viral to get people talking about Oreos? Is this big Nabisco trying to put a clever advertisement out there? I don't know. But I think it's worth talking about because this is probably a real phenomenon that goes on in these group chats. Okay, so this group chat, screenshot is going viral after a mom in a class requested the others stop packing Oreos in their own five-year-old school lunches. So the story allegedly begins on August 18th when Michelle, a mom in the group chat with

Starting point is 01:04:27 five other moms of children in the same class wrote this. Hi, everyone. Sorry, slightly awkward one, but could we maybe agree on some basic rules around lunchboxes? And then another mom. Of course. Is this about allergies? Michelle. No, nothing allergy related.

Starting point is 01:04:44 Ava came home really upset yesterday because one of the girls had Oreos in her lunch. Oh, crying, laughing face. Why was she upset? Laura says. Michelle, we don't allow that kind of thing at home. So obviously she wanted them when she saw someone else eating them. Okay, she added, I just wondered if we could agree not to send things like Oreos, chocolate, candy, et cetera, so the kids aren't comparing lunches?

Starting point is 01:05:11 Okay. Then one of the moms, Charlotte, she admits that she was the one. She sent the Oreos. She said, I sent the Oreos. And Michelle said, oh, okay, would you mind not sending them again? And Charlotte said, why? Michelle said, because Ava was really upset about it. And I think it would be easier if we're all consistent.

Starting point is 01:05:27 Another mom, Casey, says, I don't think that we can really control what everyone else packs, though. Michelle, I'm not trying to control anyone. I'm just asking everyone to be considerate. Charlotte, with respect, I'm not changing my daughter's lunch because your daughter wants an Oreo. Okay, I don't, again, don't know if it's real. However, this is how moms actually talk. And so it's not the most unrealistic thing I've ever seen.

Starting point is 01:05:49 I've never been a part of a group chat like this because everyone that I hang around is cool. But this is not completely unsurprising for me. Well, apparently the next day, y'all, Charlotte sent her daughter to school with the exact same Oreos, can you believe it? And well, Michelle went off. She said, well, I really didn't want to bring this up again, but Eva came home upset again today. And then Charlotte admits to being the one who sent the Oreos again. Charlotte said, yeah, that would be me crying, laughing, emoji. After someone's like, tell me it's not the Oreos again. And then Michelle is like, yeah, someone keeps doing this and Charlotte just owns up to it. Jenny then says, I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.

Starting point is 01:06:40 Michelle says, I don't think my daughter coming home crying two days in a row is ridiculous. Then Ashley says, but Michelle, nobody is giving them to Ava. They're just eating their own lunch. Okay. Then Michelle informs the moms that she's emailed the school about about an approved snack list, an effective Oreo ban. but then thankfully the school responded and said, okay, look, this is up to the discretion of the parents. You can't dictate this. The other moms eventually coordinated Operation Oreo packing the treats for their children in solidarity.

Starting point is 01:07:15 I mean, I do kind of feel bad that this woman is now being ganged up on for this, but it's totally ridiculous. And this is the consequence of not teaching your children. You're just not teaching your children consequences. You're not teaching them to deal with hard things. Whether or not this is, real. Like you could see this kind of thing happening because of the gentle parenting phenomenon where you don't think anything that your child does is actually wrong. Everything is a product of

Starting point is 01:07:43 just big feelings and big feelings always have to be understood. They always have to be talked about. We basically bring our children into these therapy lessons rather than just saying no. Like some feelings are bad. Some feelings are bad. That's my big problem with SEL, by the way. I visited a Christian school last year that said that they have SEL that teaches feelings aren't bad. Your actions can be bad feelings aren't bad. Jealousy is a bad feeling. Coveting is a bad feeling. Like, thou shall not covet actually makes the big ten. Jesus in his teaching says, yeah, it's not that you just shouldn't kill. You actually shouldn't hate someone. Yeah, it's not just that you shouldn't commit adultery. You should actually not even lust after someone in your

Starting point is 01:08:22 heart. There are feelings that are bad feelings and this world that we've created for our kids that says all feelings are totally normal and rational and fine and you should follow them and other people should actually have to accommodate them by changing the way that they operate, it's wrong. We're making very mentally and emotionally weak kids. And so it's our responsibility as parents not to say, yeah, okay, let me try to take away all friction in your life, but to use that opportunity to say, look, these are our values. I'm not their parents. I'm not their mom. And so they have different rules. You need to be grateful for what we're giving you. And if that continues to be a problem, it is still not the other mom's fault. Allergy issue. Okay, that's one thing. But when we are

Starting point is 01:09:09 talking about a preference and your inability to enact discipline for your child and to teach your child gratitude and contentment and self-control, I mean, that's something that, by the way, I'm not saying that I've perfected this. We're working on all of these things in our home. And it's hard. But one thing we will not teach our kids is that their feelings are everyone else's responsibility. That's just not true. Okay? We are not raising kids. We are raising future adults. And adults and kids are different. They have to be taught differently. They have to be raised differently. Of course, that is absolutely true. But we have to raise them with adulthood in mind. Is this going to be a characteristic that we want them to be displaying when they're 25 or not? If the answer is no, we need to be able to discipline them out

Starting point is 01:09:55 it now. All right. Crazy Oreo Gate. That's all we got time for today. We will be back here on Friday.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1391 | 3 Reasons Lindsay Clancy Is Absolutely Guilty

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.