Lindsay Clancy Juror: Most Of Us Were Able To ‘Get Over’ The Dead Children:
The people defending Lindsay Clancy raise serious doubts among the public about whether women can discern right from wrong.
Listening to all the Lindsay Clancy truthers on TikTok and elsewhere, you notice something right away: None of them really care that Clancy admits to having strangled her own three young children to death. The jurors who just gave a TV interview were exactly the same.
Three of them spoke with NBC10 in Boston this week, and one in particular said it most explicitly. Remarking on the one holdout juror who refused to acquit, Kellie Farina, a middle-aged white woman, said, “He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
That was just one of two times that any of the jurors referenced the dead children in the interview. The rest was how they felt about the prosecutors (“I just found her to be harsh. Very, very harsh,” said Farina); how they felt about Clancy’s defense attorney (Roni Carlson, another middle-aged white woman, said he was entertaining and yet a third middle-aged white woman, Paula Devlin, said the attorney’s “compassion” for Clancy was “amazing”); and their frustration with the holdout juror, who Devlin described as “very arrogant.”
To them, the fact that we’re here because a mother used rubber exercise bands to choke her three children to death is a minor detail only maybe worth considering in passing, if they must. The more important matter at hand is how they feel about the personalities in the same room as them at present, and whether anyone wasn’t able to “get over” the inconvenient dead kids so that they can let the stressed out murderous mom off the hook. And how “arrogant” that anyone couldn’t. --->READ MORE HERE
Clancy Juror Appears To Admit Jurors Used Outside Expertise To Badger Holdout:
Several jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial appear to have openly admitted to violating jury instruction by using their own experience to make their decision on a verdict while deliberating.
In an exclusive interview with NBC 10, a handful of the female jurors who voted to acquit Clancy bemoaned the lone male holdout. The jurors, among them nurses, accused the male holdout of being “very arrogant.” One juror said that the holdout wanted to focus on the toxicology report and that “the nurses in the room spoke to that … they spoke to that specific thing” as if their expertise should have forced him to accept their interpretation of the evidence. The jurors then decried that the lone male holdout “completely disregarded” their supposed expertise, and said the male juror “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
But disregarding the nurses’ outside opinions is precisely what the judge told the jurors to do.
According to the court transcript, the judge told jurors: “If somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and evidence you’ve heard.”
By the jurors’ own account then several of them appeared to have violated jury instructions. The jurors, by their own admission, used their own experience to interpret the evidence and then demeaned and badgered the holdout for refusing to defer to them. The lone male holdout apparently was using only the sworn testimony and evidence introduced in court to make his decision, which is exactly what the judge instructed.
As The Federalist CEO and co-founder Sean Davis said in a post on X “For purposes of a jury trial, those women have no expertise. None. The only experts are those who testify and can be cross-examined. If they tried to introduce their own alleged (and unsworn) expertise and then used it within deliberations to badger another juror, that is a bright line violation of the instructions the judge provided to the jury.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK
here, GETTR
here, and TWITTER
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment