Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Most Lindsay Clancy Coverage Has the Law All Wrong (Patreon)

Published:
2026-09-04 05:25:10
Imported:
2026-09

Downloads

Content

OA1293 - In this extra-special Rapid Response Friday, Thomas visits Boston to record live in Matt’s office and talk out two very different legal stories in the news that the media aren’t quite getting right this week.

THE TRIAL OF LINDSAY CLANCY: Why were the defense and the prosecution both talking past each other in their closing arguments, and what is everyone missing about why Massachusetts law makes it nearly impossible for Clancy to present the defense that most people seem to believe that she is putting on?

THE DEPORTATION OF MILO YIANNOPOLOUS: How did a white British man who was one of Trump’s most obnoxious supporters in 2016 end up in deportation proceedings--let alone detained by ICEand swiftly deported? Did Milo Yiannopolous really buy a ticket to fly into the major airport closest to one of the country’s largest ICE detention centers without knowing that he would almost certainly be detained and sent back to the UK ASAP? Matt shares what he has pieced together beyond the headlines, with more to come on next week’s Vapid Response Wednesday.

Finally, in today’s footnote: an upstart new social media platform is taking on Elon Musk’s X by calling itself... Twitter? Can they do that?

Video and transcript of Lindsay Clancy jury instructions and closing arguments (8/28/26)

“When Jurors Can Not Agree,” Massachusetts Jury Instruction #2.460 (2009 Edition)

“The reidentification of Milo Yiannopolous’s court data,” Jonathan Gerhardson (8/30/2026)

“Here’s How Milo Yiannopolous and White Nationalists Smuggled Hate Into the Mainstream,“ Joseph Bernstein Buzzfeed News (10/5/2017)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

ニコニコする

I thought Boston’s public transit was nice, then I moved to Tokyo. But I’m with Thomas that grading on a US-based curve it’s nice, and critically it gets to the point where it’s good enough to use as primary transit if you live and work on a line, it was nice not to have to have a car when I lived there. Nice city for sure.

beebah in boston

Welcome to MA, Thomas! The best place to get a slice for the seagulls is Galleria Umberto on Hanover Street. Hope you boyos have a good time

beebah in boston

Oh, and if you make it to Jamaica Plain, we have good food, good book & vinyl stores, and the two of the best pubs in the city

Status Quo Level Thing

I loved this episode very much! Informative and had me smiling so much at the end. Hope you enjoyed your time together in Boston! Can’t wait for the next episode.

William Evan Barnes

Thomas I really appreciate you saying that you don't know what the point of justice is if it just creates punishment. I feel the exact same. In 2017 one of my best friends was murdered when she was alone in the house we shared by someone who had experienced a psychotic break. The way I see, both of them were victims in that situation. It was horrifying and traumatic, but none of that was made better by putting the perpetrator in prison for years. It just created more suffering when all I wanted was for there to be less suffering in the world. Especially since now a person with severe psychosis is still in prison, where I am so sure that they aren't receiving real mental healthcare or rehabilitating in any way. A person who lost the brain lottery did something horrible and fully outside their control, and our justice system and so many people seem convinced that the thing that makes that better is revenge. You can't deter psychosis with threats of prison.

Natalie F.

What I can't understand is the decision to pursue prosecuting her. I mean I'm not aware of how these decisions are usually made, but there's discretion and prioritization of what cases they want to pursue, right? So who on earth hears about this terrible tragedy, has all the facts about knowing she was out of her mind, and all that the family's been through, and concludes "let's try to send this woman to jail" ??? How does that help anything? Who is served by this, how is it in the public interest? She's not a danger to anyone else and she already has to live the rest of her life knowing she's responsible for the death of her children. Is that itself not more than enough punishment? I don't understand how this is pursuing "justice". Why is this necessary, why are we doing this??? Again I'm not sure how the decisions are typically made but honestly it feels like the prosecutors are the ones who are out of their minds.

Wren

Totally understand if you don't want to revisit this case further or if we just don't have enough information, but a follow-up on the declaration of mistrial could be interesting, especially with the remarks about the option to bring in an alternate juror / classification of the one juror as not following the law

patreon sucks

there is a super-interesting film/documentary from 2024 called 'witches' that has post-partum psychosis at its core.

patreon sucks

oh god. sorry to hear this about your friend.

Matt Cameron

I would bet all of my mindstate backups that there is no way this man has finished Excession, let alone read more than thirty pages in

Xentac

I thought the jury was given an instruction that they could vote not guilty. Didn't Matt say that that would be jury nullification? I don't think I understood that part.

Apprentice57

Hey I know it's an unpleasant case and everything but I was really lost without a basic "here's what happened, here's the charges etc." because I just haven't come across this case before and listening to this podcast as my introduction had me really lost.

Matt Cameron

The verdict slip did include a NG option because it always does, but it simply would not have been a rational or factually justified vote in this case. I went back and checked the transcript--they were given the standard instruction about the Commonwealth's burden of proof which includes language about "you must find the defendant not guilty if" but since she plead NGRI rather than NG they were also given the NGRI instruction instruction which effectively supercedes it. NGRI is a variation on NG (in that the defendant is claiming that she is not criminally responsible,but *not* factually innocent), but the media hasn't been explaining that very well and often just shorthanding it as NG. So my point was that a NG vs NGRI finding would be jury nullification in that it would effectively be a statement by the jury of their belief in spite of the evidence and arguments that she did not cause the death of her children *at all* and someone else did--or simply a rejection of the prosecution's case altogether, which is what jury nullification really is at the end of the day. Someone other than Lindsay Clancy causing the deaths has never been her defense, but it is what the tiktok truthers have been saying.

Matt Cameron

Sorry about that! It does feel from here in MA like everyone already knew something about this one, and I do have a known proclivity for skipping the basics when I am fully immersed in a story. but imo since she was not contesting that she caused the death of her children and i wanted to focus on the law I thought it was enough to simply state up front that the facts here were that she killed her children, tried to kill herself, and then plead NGRI before running down the charges. Very helpful to hear from someone who didn't already know anything about this case though, will really try to keep this in mind

Fran

About minute 37 Matt says "if this is too dark you can cut it," and then drops his voice and I couldn't understand the next phrases --- was that because it was cut? i have a problem in general hearing Matt but this was especially puzzling.

Hot Spock Agrees With Me

I really appreciate the compassion Matt & Thomas routinely show, but particularly in this case when too many people seem to be using the children as an excuse for misogynist revenge.

Sam

It's hard to imagine circumstances where the prosecution fails to make their case that the defendant did the crime when the defense is conceding that. But it's not impossible, and the jury isn't legally required to take as given whatever facts the prosecution and defense agree on. There doesn't seem to be reason to doubt that in this case, though.

MrsSDC

I live between Boston and Salem and it’s been kind of embarrassing seeing this and other trials blow up nationally due to the inadequacy of our laws and other aspects of our court system. I’ve been an OA listener for several years and it’s fantastic to be able to hear this type of analysis from a local attorney with Matt’s kind of perspective. It’s a treat hearing Thomas analyze something that’s local to me, however awful the circumstances. Have a great time in Massachusetts!

Weyoun 13

Great episode. Tangentially related question - is the book club selection for this month Blizzard of Lies? I don't think Matt specified the title but said it's the only book about the Karen Reed trial. Google brings up more than one book on the topic.

jennyjenjen

I will say that this is the first time I’ve ever been really intrigued by the big conspiracy/other side of the story with anything remotely close to the Lindsay Clancy trial. So much of it doesn’t make sense. But, like my therapist likes to remind me: our brains make up stories for things that don’t make sense. When it comes to this case, Patrick Clancy isn’t on trial and that is just the long and short of it.