In the old days, Democrats intimidated juries by riding around outside the courthouse in white pointy hoods. These days, they wear pink shirts and social media. The means may have changed but the motive is still the same: blackmail, bully and terrorise juries into letting the most appalling murderers walk free.
Massachusetts has just given the country a masterclass. Lindsay Clancy sent her husband on an errand, then systematically killed their three children. She confessed. The defence offered the modern indulgences: postpartum psychosis, a convenient inner voice and, most jaw-dropping of all, the newly minted slogan “altruistic filicide”. Eleven jurors, nine of them women, wanted to send her home. One man would not. He sat through the evidence and concluded that planning the slaughter of three defenceless children is incompatible with ‘she couldn’t help it’.
As British lawyer and law commentator Daniel ShenSmith has pointed out, that’s the opposite of a ‘failure of the jury system’: it’s the jury system working exactly as it’s meant to. Even if that doesn’t give an army of demented, child-hating harpies the Get Out of Murder Free card they so desperately want.
The other 11 tried to have him removed for “not following the law”, which in this context meant ‘not following the deranged feminist mob’. We can only imagine what the poor man was subjected to: the alternative jury pool said they could hear the ‘deliberations’ (unhinged fishwife screeching) clear across the court building. The judge refused to bow to the harridans, too, and declared a mistrial.
Then the real trial started: of the brave lone juror. No matter how hard they had to trample the law to get him, get him they are determined to.
Clancy’s lawyer went straight to the cameras and an appeals court, accusing the holdout of prejudice against the disabled because he declined the insanity script. Fellow jurors piled on. The press piled on. The lawyer’s wife piled on. Not satisfied with breaking the law, they proceeded to jump up and down on the pieces. They started doxxing him: past, family, front door. NBC Boston supplied enough ‘not naming him’ detail that the internet named him anyway.
Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire summarises it all succinctly: they are punishing him for refusing the programme, and advertising the price to every future juror who might convict her. “They’re trying to pollute any future jury pool by making it clear that anyone who votes to convict Clancy will have their life destroyed.”
Massachusetts already has a statute for this: they’re just not enforcing their own laws. Harassing or retaliating against a juror in a life-imprisonment case can mean 20 years. Yet, nobody is being fitted for cuffs. The cameras are still rolling.
Then came the punchline the identitarians could not script. Gayle King went slack-jawed on CBS when it emerged that the arrogant, uncooperative ‘moron’ they had spent a week kicking was the only black man in the room.
Eleven against one, and the one was black.
In a movie churned out by Democrat-run Hollywood, this would have been a month of white-supremacy specials. Instead the hierarchy jammed. When a black juror will not bless child-murder, he is reclassified: not black enough; possibly ‘learning disabled’. Social media leftists wondered if he was slow.
The Democrats can change out of their pointy hoods, but they can’t change their stripes. If they can’t just up and hang an uppity black man, they’ll tell the world he is just stupid.
The identity leak was not an accident. They had already outed him as male. Three men on the panel. Then they advertised that he was black. Anyone who knew a black man had vanished for seven weeks could do the rest. Name and photo followed. Massachusetts eventually published juror names. That, incredibly, is not a crime.
The crime is publishing the vote, the deliberations and a character assassination timed to destroy the man who cast it.
NBC’s Sue O’Connell led the charge to his doorstep: old domestic allegations (dismissed), a restraining order (not a conviction), unpaid rent, a ninth-grade C-minus, anonymous Uber drivers who say he tips badly. So far, they haven’t found someone to testify that he pulled their pigtails in fourth grade. No ‘sources familiar with the matter’ alleging he once kicked a puppy.
Give them time.
None of the dirt, even if every syllable were gospel, disqualifies a Massachusetts juror. A felony in the last seven years, current charges, or a cell will do it. An arrest record, if anything, usually leans defence. They left him on the panel. He was the only one who would not pretend strangling three children is healthcare.
The same women now clutching pearls over unverified ‘domestic violence’ had just spent weeks explaining why a mother who used exercise bands to strangle her own toddlers wasn’t guilty of proven domestic violence of the worst kind.
If anyone is outing themselves as utterly stupid, it’s the publicity-hound harridans slavering at the mouth to announce to the world just how unfit they clearly are to be on a jury.
One juror cited an “It’s a wonderful life” sign in the house as if kitsch were an alibi. Another discovered “altruistic filicide” and treated it as an acquittal stamp: even though, on its own bogus terms, it describes a person who chooses to kill and calls it kindness. That is motive, not madness.
A fair retrial is now a fantasy. Anyone inclined to convict knows the ritual: address online, family phoned, every unpaid bill on the six o’clock news. The 11 who voted to acquit have not had their rental history audited. That is the tell.
Pink shirts, same ride around the courthouse. The hoods came off. The lynch mob mentality stayed firmly in place.
