- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 3 Lindsay Clancy jurors speak out in new NBC10 Boston interview (Updated)
Posted on 9/8/26 at 9:25 pm to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 9/8/26 at 9:25 pm to RLDSC FAN
What utterly, disgusting, vile hags.
Almost every single problem in modern society can be traced to women like this having any sort of say in anything.
Almost every single problem in modern society can be traced to women like this having any sort of say in anything.
0
Posted on 9/8/26 at 9:28 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
The jurors complained that the prosecution showed little compassion for Lindsay Clancy. Wrap your minds around that for a second. They're mad that the prosecutor did not properly love on the lady that murdered three children. That's where we are right now as a society.
Left wing "empathy" is always towards the evil do-er.
If they see a rabid wolf tearing apart a child they will hope the wolf's jaw is not getting too sore and then brag about how empathetic they.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 9:34 pm to StansberryRules
Pro Clancy women on Facebook were all saying the lone juror would be the one to go to the press for interviews first.
Once again, they’re in the wrong on this.
Once again, they’re in the wrong on this.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:23 pm to RLDSC FAN
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, jury duty included.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:34 pm to tWildcat
It’s truly unbelievable that you have Clancy saying she did it, her Defense saying she did it (and they had three years to come up with a defense) but so many woman think she didn’t do it and her husband did it, based off of TikTok and social media video evidence
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 11:01 pm to StansberryRules
True
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:21 am to tigersmanager
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:39 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
"He would not interact with us... He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."
People that think this illogically should not be nurses, teachers, any job that requires rational thinking that can seriously impact another human.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:46 am to sgallo3
quote:
Honestly she should be found guilty by reason of insanity
Why haven't more states revised their laws to reflect this rather than innocent by reason of insanity?
Related ... didn't the defense argue that this was a only a "psychotic episode" where she isn't insane but for the 18 mins it took to kill her 3 children?
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 7:49 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:27 am to Shorts Guy
quote:
Good for whoever held it up. Imagine the shitstorm he must’ve endured from the other jurors who were drooling over the notion of letting a child killer walk free.
That guy is an absolute beast. I’m sure those harpies were so used to browbeating people into submission that their brains were fried when they finally ran up against Chad.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:36 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:31 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
Every time a leftist throws out the "cult" reference to the opposition, remember demonic shite like this.
What does any of this have to do with the right or left?
Your political overloads have programed you to have this tribalistic response.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:34 am to RLDSC FAN
She’s looks just like most would have guessed.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 9:06 am to tiggerthetooth
There are many take-a-ways.
1. Nurses on the jury providing their opinions - " A juror cannot present themselves as an authority or share specialized, professional, or technical facts that were not introduced through formal trial testimony." This might have caused a mistrial.
2. "He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children”. Unlike men, women seek validation for their thoughts, beliefs and actions. LC getting acquitted would have removed the guilt for their beliefs in killing babies and I'd assume most of the women on the jury have had abortions. Maybe the ones with kids have guilt because they wanted to kill their kids - more guilt needing validation.
3. One of the women made a comment "the holdout was arrogant and wouldn't listen". This is a prefect example of the lefts inability for introspection. It never occurred to her that she wasn't listening to him.
4. The holdout is stupid. They all have a tone and make comments alluding to him being stupid because he didn't agree with them. Typical leftest mentality. From the tone you'd think he was a grade school dropout. I'd wager he's an engineer or technical professional.
As others have stated, this is why women should not vote or serve on juries. Their lives are spent in a mind hive seeking validation for their choices. Social media is where they gather to feed off each others mental deficiencies.
1. Nurses on the jury providing their opinions - " A juror cannot present themselves as an authority or share specialized, professional, or technical facts that were not introduced through formal trial testimony." This might have caused a mistrial.
2. "He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children”. Unlike men, women seek validation for their thoughts, beliefs and actions. LC getting acquitted would have removed the guilt for their beliefs in killing babies and I'd assume most of the women on the jury have had abortions. Maybe the ones with kids have guilt because they wanted to kill their kids - more guilt needing validation.
3. One of the women made a comment "the holdout was arrogant and wouldn't listen". This is a prefect example of the lefts inability for introspection. It never occurred to her that she wasn't listening to him.
4. The holdout is stupid. They all have a tone and make comments alluding to him being stupid because he didn't agree with them. Typical leftest mentality. From the tone you'd think he was a grade school dropout. I'd wager he's an engineer or technical professional.
As others have stated, this is why women should not vote or serve on juries. Their lives are spent in a mind hive seeking validation for their choices. Social media is where they gather to feed off each others mental deficiencies.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 9:14 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Even if you wholeheartedly believe she was not guilty due to insanity, how can you be excited to report that verdict?
Can't start making media deals until the trial is over.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 9:14 am to Christopher Columbo
She seems to be saying that she really thought Clancy was guilty, but she was too scared to vote guilty, and she was excited when she realized that somebody else was voting guilty. (At least that's how I interpret the comment, which is pretty confusing.)
Posted on 9/9/26 at 9:55 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I'm going to wager more than likely, based on how she said this, that he never said he had reasonable doubts and that is her injecting herself into his opinions and is taking any doubts whatsoever as "reasonable doubt".
I’ve always thought this was 100% the case. It’s the only thing that made sense. There is just no fathomable way this guy—or anybody on any jury—said “I have reasonable doubt, but I’m voting guilty anyway.” For a couple of reasons: 1) he would—and should—have been replaced. (If he said those exact words). But 2) If he really wanted her to be held accountable—which, clearly he did—even if he did THINK those exact words, there’s no way he would have been that stupid to actually say them. He’d have been more subtle.
From the moment the judge read the Massachusetts definition of “reasonable doubt,” I thought it was pretty obvious the jurors were disagreeing on exactly what that meant. What is “reasonable” to one person may not be “reasonable” to another. Which is fine. Which is GOOD. That’s the whole point of having 12 jurors, from different backgrounds, with different perspectives, different intellects, different life experiences. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret the word “reasonable.” And if they can’t, if after hours and days of deliberating, if 2 sides are still holding steadfast in their beliefs and can’t come to a unanimous agreement, then a hung jury and mistrial is proper way to handle it. Shitty as it may feel. The system actually worked in this case.
But only because the one guy held steadfast in his belief that it was unreasonable to doubt Lindsay Clansey was criminally responsible. That is the only thing that makes sense. Until he comes out and literally says “I had reasonable doubt, but still said ‘guilty,’ that’s the only thing I’ll believe.
It HAD to be the foreperson projecting her beliefs onto what he actually said and either misinterpreting it, or straight up twisting it on purpose. We know she fricked up in the notes when she told the judge it was 11-1, it was in favor of NGRI, and she even told the judge the holdouts jury number. All completely improper.
I haven’t seen all the videos, but did no interviewer ask the most obvious and only logical next question after these women said what they did—“Did he say those EXACT words verbatim? Did he literally say he had “reasonable doubt,” but was going to vote guilty anyway?”
Posted on 9/9/26 at 10:38 am to theCrusher
quote:
Nurses on the jury providing their opinions - " A juror cannot present themselves as an authority or share specialized, professional, or technical facts that were not introduced through formal trial testimony." This might have caused a mistrial.
This was one of my takeaways too. I actually wrote a big paragraph about it, but cut it because my post was already way too long. Jurors are supposed to bring their unique life experiences and perspectives into deliberations. Silently. It should be baked into how they think, but not spoken. What is discussed should ONLY be the facts admitted in trial. I literally wrote:
quote:
Though I’m not sure the nurses on the jury trying to inject their personal experiences into the process is supposed to be allowed. Juries are supposed to deliberate over ONLY what was submitted in trial, and it sounds like they were trying to make themselves de facto “experts.” Your life experiences should be subconsciously—or at least silently—baked into your perspective and interpretations of the facts, not overtly mentioned.
I don’t think it’s proper—or should even be relevant—for the jurors to know what each other did for a living. It shouldn’t matter. But people are people, and I’m sure this is relatively common.
quote:
This might have caused a mistrial.
I don’t agree with this, though. Or at least not in the same way. It SHOULDN’T have caused a mistrial, because the judge shouldn’t have ever known about it. What goes on in the jury room should be sacrosanct. The judge is not supposed to know what is going on in that room besides what he infers from questions they may have. Even then, his inferences should be kept to himself.
A judge inserting himself into the proceedings would be highly improper, would almost certainly get a conviction overturned on appeal, and possibly end in his removal from the bench. Thats why he told her not to give a vote count in any further notes/questions. He knew she had way overstepped and was likely pretty pissed. Especially when Reddington basically disclosed exactly what the note said in open court on live tv and in his press conferences afterwards.
quote:
I'd assume most of the women on the jury have had abortions
This is just silly. There’s nothing to indicate that. Though I do assume most were not able to stay off social media and avoid the news and any discussions of the case. With 5 weeks of trial and another week of deliberations, that just doesn’t seem possible in 2026.
They don’t have to be abortion loving, Marxist feminazis to have to have voted NGRI. Which is actually all the more terrifying. “Normal” women have gotten caught up in this as well. (Though certainly not saying these 3 women are what we’d usually consider “normal.”)
quote:
I'd wager he's an engineer or technical professional.
Meh. Maybe. He could just as easily be a janitor or construction worker or small business owner, anything.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 10:40 am to Hot Carl
quote:
But in an interview with the CBS affiliate in Boston, Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington laid out his strategy, which is straightforward and much less moronic than it first appeared. He wants the president — who loves to get involved in every high-attention event from the World Cup to the U.S. Open to the Super Bowl to the NBA Finals — to intervene and prevent a second trial by leaning on the county prosecutor.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/9/26 at 10:49 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
A woman who was juror No. 5 spoke to WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex Tuesday, though she asked to remain anonymous.
"At the end of the day, there was so much doubt," the woman said. "The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."
The juror said that from the start of deliberations, the majority of the room was trying to sway the lone holdout.
"The majority of people, it doesn't matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and their belief from the beginning," she said. "The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side. So, I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions."
The juror who spoke to WBZ-TV said at first, she believed Clancy should be found guilty and was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.
"And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this is a woman who was not mentally healthy. She was someone who was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis," the juror said. "I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out."
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 10:53 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 10:52 am to RLDSC FAN
fricking murderous hags, drag their asses to Salem and burn them at the stake.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News