print-icon
print-icon
Add ZeroHedge as a preferred source on Google

Female Lindsay Clancy Jurors Have Public Meltdown Over Mistrial

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Authored...

It's almost shocking how prophetic the conservative online memes were when it came to the hidden deliberations inside the Lindsay Clancy jury room.  The court proceedings have sparked a political firestorm as a female led cult of supporters (mostly leftists) rallied to defend Clancy, a mother who confessed to brutally murdering her three helpless children after sending her husband out of the house on errands.   

The case has triggered a wake up call for America, with critics pointing out that the feminist movement has done far more damage to society than anyone realized.  The ideology is so malignant, it has inspired millions of women to become morally devoid monsters.  Coupled with social media addiction and false consensus bias, the Clancy trial conjured what many are calling a "mass psychosis event".   

Now that the case has ended in a mistrial (11 to 1) and the jurors (9 women and 3 men) have been sent home, the truth is starting to leak out. 

Three female jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial - foreperson Roni Carlson, Paula Devlin, and Kellie Farina - gave an exclusive interview to NBC10 Boston this week. Much of their discussion focused on their frustration with the mistrial and the lone male holdout juror (the person defense attorney Kevin Reddington called a “rogue juror”).  The attitudes and conclusions of these jurors were exactly as most people predicted.    

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one. And then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”

“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” 

The circumstances surrounding the murders suggest that Clancy was fully aware of what she was doing, including the fact that her supposed "psychotic episode" in which she "heard a voice" telling her to kill her children had never happened before or since.  The episode also just happened to take place right after she sent her then husband Patrick Clancy on multiple errands which kept him away from the house. 

She even took a phone call from Patrick while she was in the midst of committing the murders and acted as if everything was fine.

Clancy was in treatment only a couple weeks before the event, but checked herself out.  She was diagnosed with a depressive disorder (not a psychosis) and she denied having any homicidal or suicidal thoughts.  Some of the drugs in her system (which the defense claimed were the cause of her "episode") were taken by Clancy in an attempt to overdose after the children were dead.  All of this information and more was ignored by 11 jurors for the sake of a convenient insanity plea. 

But the realities in the deliberations room get even more disturbing.  One female juror has come forward asserting that many of the jurors had taken Clancy's side early in the case and pressure to let her off with an insanity plea was applied.  This juror denounced the conspiracy claims on social media that the husband was the "real killer" and admits that Lindsay did indeed commit the act.  However, she also hints that despite her own misgivings, she had to side with the other "big personalities in the room". 

The rest of the jurors interviewed highlight the "vibes" of the defense attorney, noting that Kevin Reddington was fun, likable and empathetic to Lindsay (facts, apparently, took a backseat).  It should be noted that the jurors were not sequestered in this case, which means they went home each night and had free and unmonitored access to the internet and all the ridiculous theories available.  

In Massachusetts, the rules surrounding an insanity plea are reversed.  Usually, it is up to the defense to prove that the suspect was suffering from a mental breakdown.  But in MA, it is up to the prosecution to prove the suspect was not insane at the time of the crime.  How does one prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was not crazy when the crime alone requires an inherent level of insanity?  It's impossible. 

This is why around half of all women who use postpartum psychosis as a murder defense escape real punishment for their crimes.  The case centers on the criminal as if that person is a victim, too.     

In MA if Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity she is remanded to a mental health facility, but she has the chance to be released as early as six months into her incarceration.  Keep in mind, her defense was that her psychosis was temporary; it had never happened before or since the murders.  In other words, she would automatically be considered "cured" by the standards of the facilities in MA - How would they be able to prove otherwise?   

Thankfully, at least one juror had the courage to stop this from happening.  The case has started a national conversation about the exploitation of "women's health" issues as a shield to protect female criminals from prosecution.  The threat being that America has been conned into accepting a two tier justice system in favor of violent women willing to play crazy.  The hormone defense would never work for a man who killed his three children; why should it work for Lindsay Clancy?   

0