Insanity: Female Jurors Were Crazed With Anger as Judge Ruled Lindsay Clancy Trial a Mistrial
Update: Lawyer Wants Trump to Pardon> the Child Killer

Update: The evil defense attorney wants Trump to pardon Lindsay Clancy... for the state crimes of murdering her children.

Townhall.com @townhallcom

Lindsay Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington making an appeal to Trump: "Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider, this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon."

Does that mean he's stupid? No, just evil. He knows Trump can't pardon his psychopath child-killer client. He's just trying to expand Lindsay Clancy's Cult of Murder so that the prosecutors feel pressured to drop the case or give her a sweetheart deal.

I missed this on Friday. Maybe you did too.

After the judge said he might declare a mistrial, he suspended the trial so that the insane defense attorney could appeal his ruling to not exclude one juror for being sane to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

But that appeal was denied -- thank goodness -- and then he declared a mistrial.

Which the Pink Ladies on the jury -- ChristyBinky tells me that several of the women were wearing pink on the jury, which is the color Lindsay Clancy's supporters outside the courtroom were wearing -- were enraged by.

How the hell were they ever allowed on the jury, or allowed to remain on the jury?

This was the emergency appeal -- a claim that the lone male holdout was "biased" against the "disabled" because he wouldn't allow a triple-child-murderess walk free:

Jonathan Turley writes that the unethical defense lawyer put a target on the lone male holdout's back.

"I hope that guy can sleep well at night."

Those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts Courthouse were part of a diatribe against the "guy" who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney.

After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was "no time to gloat," Reddington bragged repeatedly about "crushing" District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother -- ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.

But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.

The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.

For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less "Twelve Angry Men" and more like "One Angry Man." Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he "only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?"

His appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court accused the lone male holdout of harboring a "bias" against mentally ill child-murderers.

Earlier in the day, Reddington had asked a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice for an emergency order to force Sullivan not to declare a mistrial, and instead to remove the holdout in favor of an alternate. It was an utterly meritless effort, but Reddington used the filing to further denounce the juror. He compared the juror's refusal to vote for his client as akin to leaving a racist on a jury. In this case, he suggested that the "guy" was a virtual anti-disability version of "Bull" Connor or some deranged "ableist."

Now he says he didn't intend to get this guy murdered, and in fact would defend his right to hold out.

Based on this, I think I can see what happened in the jury room: At least two of the female jurors were essentially crazed fans of the child-murderer. They probably harrangued the hold-outs (it is speculated that there had been more jurors for conviction, but they buckled and gave in to crazed peer pressure).

I can imagine these two harpies coming at this guy with full Social Justice Warrior spittle-spraying fury, and they guy trying to calm them down, saying something like "I can understand why you have doubts," and then them seizing, autistically, on that one "admission," and pestering the judge telling him "this (spit) man admitted there is room for doubt but he won't vote with us to acquit!"

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 01:15 PM

| Access Comments