I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms.
I actually praised Reddington’s handling through the end of the trial, until I felt he blew the summation to the jury. I was also critical of his motions to substitute a holdout juror with an alternate as running against the overwhelming authority in the area. However, what triggered Reddington was not my commentary on his trial performance, but what he did outside of the courthouse when he attacked the holdout juror. It was a repugnant and unprofessional venting by counsel who should be reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors but the world.
Reddington responded to my characterization of his conduct in front of the courthouse as “reprehensible” by calling my criticism reprehensible and adding, “maybe Jonathan Turley should check out the record before he makes his accusations.”
The “record” supporting this criticism is, in fact, his self-aggrandizing performance outside of the courthouse when he first said that the hung jury was “no time to gloat” and then gloated about how he “crushed” the prosecution in securing an 11-1 result. Yet, my objection was not to chest-thumping. It was a tad ungracious but unfortunately not entirely uncommon. Rather, it was the targeting of the holdout that left me floored as a fellow criminal defense lawyer.
Reddington had previously lit up the courtroom (which was being aired nationally) with his attacks on the juror. Reddington only knew that the other jurors were unhappy with the juror and said that he refused to follow the law. That is a common complaint against a holdout juror. This case turned on the credibility of the defendant and almost visceral reactions to a case where three innocent children were strangled by their mother, who planned the killings by sending her husband on errands.
I was mildly critical of the courtroom attacks, but I give leeway to a defense counsel who is fighting zealously for his client in seeking an acquittal. It was taking that rage outside the courthouse that crossed the line for me.
Reddington slammed the juror who was already identified as one of just three males on the jury. He knew the juror’s name would likely be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s outcome.
We clearly disagree on what lawyers are expected to do in high-profile cases. This is not what I teach my students about the professional standards that govern our conduct as officers of the court. Most of those expectations are not directly enforced by bar or court proceedings. Rather, much of what we do is the result of self-regulation; seeking to reinforce the noble ideals of our profession.
Instead of reminding people that our system is based on this core belief in the right of any citizen to stand alone against the majority, Reddington shredded the juror as presumptively anti-disability and akin to a racist on the jury. In front of the cameras, he declared, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Reddington knew that he was playing to the mob. District Attorney Tim Cruz had just been heckled on the steps by women who protested throughout the trial in favor of acquittal of Clancy, with one yelling how Cruz “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”
Frankly, in the aftermath of the trial, the two things that surprised me most were not the verdict, but the absence of an immediate apology from Reddington for his gratuitous attack on this juror and the failure of Judge William Sullivan to publicly rebuke him for his comments.
While our disagreement focuses on the attack on the juror, Reddington returned to his claim that what this juror did was itself unethical and contemptible. This juror was not convinced by his arguments, but Reddington suggests that no reasonable juror could have reached such a view despite many in this country who saw his client as a troubled murderer, but a murderer nonetheless.
There was a good-faith basis for taking that view even if most people would likely see Clancy as not responsible by reason of insanity. The standard is not whether Clancy was medically ill. She was clearly a deeply disturbed individual who failed to receive adequate mental health treatment. However, you can be suicidal and mentally ill and still appreciate the gravity of your actions.
The defense position was not unassailable. The long list of medications ignored the fact that only a couple of those prescriptions would likely contribute to psychosis and it was not clear how many pills Clancy actually took. She also had a fairly unusual case of postpartum psychosis in terms of the passage of time and said that she first heard a commanding male voice for the first time just before she killed her children.
Most importantly, Clancy took steps that showed planning and control of her actions, including researching how long it would take her misdirected husband to return. She spoke with him on the telephone while she was carrying out the plan and kept him in the dark about her intent to kill their children.
Would that erase reasonable doubt in the minds of most jurors? Probably not. As I stated before the trial, the chances of getting a unanimous verdict in this type of case are slim. This is a visceral case, which is why I was not surprised that the jury asked only to see a couple of pieces of evidence. The views of most people were baked into this trial before it began, and frankly, that may have been true for some of the jurors.
Reddington has every reason to exploit those feelings and play to doubts among the jurors. What he did not have license to do was target and ostracize the one holdout juror. Rather than taking the high ground, he immediately ran for the lowest common denominator among a nation of rage addicts.
Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Gail King was shocked that a Black Man has moral convictions
That is the real story
Moral convictions, you say.
Really???
It has just been revealed that the juror in question was arrested in 2021 for domestic violence.
He tried to strangle his wife. Very interesting considering the charges in the Clancy case. His own mother called him evil.
He divorced his wife, and the charges of domestic violence were dropped because she refused to testify, fearing that he would seek revenge and try to take custody of their daughter.
He also attacked and beat his nephew, who now has a restraining order against him.
He is also being evicted for failing to pay $12,000 in rent.
All of this would have disqualified him from jury duty. Jurors are asked to declare under penalty of perjury any history of arrest, criminal charges or conviction, or being served with a court order. Clearly he perjured himself in his declaration, and would never have been allowed on the jury if he had declared his criminal past.
Obviously, a fine upstanding citizen of the highest moral standards.
https://nypost.com/2026/09/11/us-news/lindsay-clancy-male-holdout-juror-has-history-of-domestic-violence-allegations-active-restraining-order-report/
The case is becoming interesting. The holdout filled out forms detailing any criminal or legal history. The court doesn’t typically run the data to confirm the person is who he says he is, just like many jurisdictions that don’t check voter ID. Remember that, anonymous posters.
The second interesting thing is that Reddington typically uses a private investigator to find out information on the jurors. I understand that he even had a private investigator at the courthouse. Did he know the holdout’s background?
So is this a mistrial?
Diogenes, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Does Redington have culpability as a supposedly excellent attorney, or does he just have a big mouth that should be closed and censored? I would have thought that, in such a high-profile case, and with private detectives, he would have used them for jury selection. Maybe he doesn’t know the district, or the state doesn’t do a check on what jurors swear to. He bungled his case.
What a pile of nonsensical garbage.
Reddington had a private investigator as a fact witness. The investigator, Robert Jones, conducted his own investigations of the facts in the case, and testified as an expert witness to present the defense view of those facts. He did not investigate the jurors as you preposterously claim. That would be illegal, not to mention logistically impossible.
More than 300 people were called as a jury pool for the case. In Massachusetts the identities of those people in the pool are not made known to the defense until the morning of the trial, just hours before voir dire. It would be impossible for anyone to investigate the backgrounds of the jury members.
And you make the astoundingly absurd and ignorant statement that Reddington bungled the case.
Really ???
His client has not been convicted. The job of a defense attorney is to prevent his client from being convicted. Reddington succeeded brilliantly.
You are an ignorant fool.
“He did not investigate the jurors as you preposterously claim. That would be illegal, not to mention logistically impossible.”
It is not illegal to obtain legal information about a juror, and it is not impossible. Most people realize they can Google any name and perhaps get useful information quickly, not perfect, but better than nothing.
To me, if Reddington didn’t use that information, he lost his ability to challenge the lone juror at the beginning or at any point during the trial.
Yes, you have proven yourself, as usual, “an ignorant fool.”
Your ignorance of the actual events at the trial is astounding. And if you even bothered to read my comment, you completely failed to comprehend what I said.
Let me repeat, in Massachusetts the parties to a criminal case do not know the identities of the individuals called for the jury pool until minutes before the day’s proceedings begin. It is impossible to do an in depth investigation of the jury pool. The procedure in Massachusetts is as follows.
The people called for jury duty are required to show up at the court before 8:30am. They fill out the Confidential Juror Questionnaires which are then collected and photocopied by the staff. The staff then distributes the paper copies of the questionnaires to the attorneys of the prosecution and defense. They do not get digital copies or lists. Everything is on paper, and every piece of paper is uniquely identified. The reason for this is that Massachusetts privacy law is very strict. The CJQ’s are not public record and cannot be disclosed outside the court. It is illegal to photograph or digitize the CJQ’s. At the end of voir dire every piece of paper must be returned to the court and destroyed as required by Chapter 234a, Section 23.
“Upon completion of voir dire, the parties and their counsel shall return all copies of the completed questionnaire to the clerk or the assistant clerk. The clerk of court shall retain in a secure place all original completed questionnaires for each impanelled jury and alternate jurors until final disposition of the case. These completed questionnaires shall not constitute a public record. All copies of juror questionnaire, other than the copy retained by the trial judge and the original retained by the clerk, shall be destroyed as soon as practicable after the completion of voir dire.”
https://law.justia.com/codes/massachusetts/2015/part-iii/title-ii/chapter-234a/section-23/
The paper copies of CJQ’s from the jury pool are physically handed to the attorneys and within minutes the judge enters and the day’s proceedings begin with voir dire. The attorneys or their paralegals are permitted to take the names of the potential jurors and do internet searches when they receive the CJQ’s, but they have to do that in real time, in the court, as the voir dire proceeds. It is virtually impossible to get any significant information about the jurors as the process unfolds, especially for the first 10 or 12 individuals who are up first. The only real investigation is limited to those on the list who are called towards the end of the voir dire, because sufficient time has elapsed before they are called. If the holdout was one of the first few called on any given day, then it would be impossible to get any information in time to challenge.
You have criticized Reddington and his investigator for failing to adequately investigate the jurors. I responded by saying that it would be illegal for the private investigator to conduct such an investigation, and that is absolutely true despite your false claim to the contrary. It is illegal to remove the CJQ’s from the court. It would therefore be illegal for the investigator to take that information outside the courthouse, let alone conduct an investigation.
As I said, the only legally permissible “investigation” is by a paralegal in the courthouse while the attorney is actually questioning the potential juror in real time. It is effectively impossible to do a thorough “investigation”, for the few minutes that the attorneys have with the juror.
In the Clancy case, around 300 jurors were called for the pool. Voir dire extended over 4 days. About 75 people were called each day, and the attorneys were only given the names of the 75 or so people who showed up each day.
Any investigation of jurors is very cursory and it is simply impossible to get information on every single one of them in time for the voir dire questioning. In effect, the attorneys have to rely on the self-disclosed information in the CJQ’s.
This is how the holdout juror slipped through. He obviously lied in his CJQ, and there was insufficient time to find any information about him.
I should also point out that criminal and court records do not display in general internet searches. The only way to get criminal records about a specific person is to go to the specific court database where the records are held. That often requires the searcher to have an account with the court and to login. And the searcher has to know which court holds the records. There are a great multitude of municipal, county, state and federal courts, and it is simply not possible to search all of them in the few minutes available to the paralegals.
When you try to do a search on Google for criminal records, you get a response similar to this:
“While a public search shows property deeds and real estate assessment listings involving an individual named John Smith, actual criminal or civil court records are not fully indexable or viewable via general internet searches. To officially look up or verify court case records for an individual in a specific jurisdiction, you must search through the local court portals directly”
It was not a failure on Reddington’s part that the holdout got through. It was not a failure by his investigator. He did not “bungle the case” by failing to investigate the jurors. He did what very limited investigation was permitted, but the time and legal constraints prevented discovery of the holdout’s past.
There was no failure at all as far as the defense is concerned. As I said, the duty of the defense is to prevent conviction of the client. Reddington succeeded brilliantly in defending his client, despite his inability to identify the criminal past of the holdout juror.
The only “failure” here is the failure of the prosecution to adequately make their case. And yet you somehow believe that Reddington’s team failed and “bungled the case”, when they undoubtedly succeeded in preventing the conviction of their client.
You are completely out of your tiny little MAGA mind.
” It is impossible to do an in depth investigation of the jury pool. “
You talk about reading comprehension, but what did I say? Here it is.
” Most people realize they can Google any name and perhaps get useful information quickly, not perfect, but better than nothing.”
Where did I say “ in depth “ you lying birdbrain? A secretary can get significant information in one or two minutes from the Internet, which is public. There is no guarantee as to what can be found.
Such searches in the courtroom are not uncommon, but the judge does make the final decision. The ABA finds the searches permissible.
You are so dumb you could be GSX, but with your anonymous shield it’s hard to tell. There are just too many dummies with the anonymous alias.
Once again you demonstrate an astounding inability to comprehend simple statements.
First of all, you make the claim that I falsely accused you of using the term “in depth” with regard to the investigation. I did no such thing. You are either lying or are simply incapable of comprehending what I said. I was the one who made the comment that an “in depth” investigation was impossible. I did not attribute that definition to you. It is simply an observation that I made as part of my explanation as to how the jurors can be investigated during voir dire.
Your original criticism of Reddington’s team was that his private investigator failed to investigate the jury pool and failed to uncover the criminal records of the holdout juror, and therefore “bungled the case”. I explained in great detail how it would be illegal for the private investigator to take the information about the jury pool out of the courthouse and do an investigation. The only permissible “investigation” is by a paralegal physically present and under supervision in the courthouse, and in real time just minutes before voir dire begins. The time constraints of such “investigations” precludes any discovery of useful CRIMINAL information.
You responded with the assertion “Most people realize they can Google any name and perhaps get useful information quickly, not perfect, but better than nothing.”
SO WHAT !!!!
That is true but completely irrelevant to your original argument. There is no doubt that Reddington’s paralegal would have done a Google search, but obviously failed to get any useful information. If useful information had been found, such as the criminal records, then Reddington could easily have dismissed the juror.
Again I explained in great detail that a simple Google search does not pull up criminal court records, because they are not indexable in their protocols. A cursory Google search cannot pull up a criminal record. And your original criticism of Reddington is that he failed to get the holdout’s criminal record, which is effectively impossible to do within the time constraints of voir dire.
You are constantly backpedaling and shifting your argument to try to make some point that is completely fatuous and irrelevant. You started by accusing Reddington’s private investigator of failing to investigate the jurors. When you realized that it would have been impossible and illegal for the investigator to do this, you shift the argument to the paralegals failing to get the information from cursory Google searches, even though I have explained in detail that Google searches do not include court databases, and you, yourself admit that Google searches may not be perfect or useful.
The bottom line is that Reddington’s team was unable to uncover the criminal records of the holdout juror during voir dire. If they had uncovered this information there is no question that the juror would have been dismissed.
Despite this, Reddington still managed to successfully defend his client, who, I remind you, was not convicted. The duty of the defense is to prevent a conviction. Reddington succeeded brilliantly. He convinced 11 jurors that his client is not guilty. The holdout juror freely admitted that he had doubt, but refused to obey the judge’s order to give the benefit of that doubt to the defendant.
The only failure here is on the part of the prosecution, who failed miserably in this case.
GSX, you are a liar and stupid.
You wrote something I didn’t say and then called me out, saying the attorney can’t do an in-depth search when I talked about a quick Google search.
Presently you say “you make the claim that I falsely accused you of using the term “in depth” concerning the investigation.”
Here are your previous words.
“. It is impossible to do an ***in depth*** investigation of the jury pool. The procedure in Massachusetts is as follows.”
You obviously don’t realize a secretary can do a Google search quickly to see if anything turns up in public files that contain suits and criminal actions, newspapers, consolidators of such information, social media, etc.
Reddington proved himself to not be a respectable lawyer and may likely end up in front of the bar for actions not fitting of a lawyer.
The rest of your post contains many more errors that I won’t bother with. You need an education and maybe a brain transplant.
This discussion has apparently entered the Twilight Zone.
You are fixating on the term “in depth” for some reason. I never attributed the use of that term to you as you falsely claim. I never even implied that you used that term. The term did not come up until I used it in a simple factual explanation of the limitations the defense faces in an investigation during voir dire.
You first said that a Google search could be used to get information, and you also acknowledged that such a search is “not perfect, but better than nothing”. I agree 100%, and I clearly stated that such searches were almost certainly done, but did not turn up anything, because as you correctly observe such searches are “not perfect”. If anything turned up, then Reddington would have acted on it, so we can reasonably conclude that the imperfect Google search was to no avail.
Then I simply made the factual statement, based on our agreed understanding that Google searches are “not perfect”, that under the conditions of voir dire an “in depth” investigation is not possible. It was simply an observational statement of fact. I never attributed that statement to you, as you so strangely believe. When I said that an “in depth” search was not possible it was in the context of agreeing with you that Google searches are limited and imperfect, and unlikely to find useful information. I was not “calling you out” by implying that you meant an “in depth” search when you merely talked about Google searches. I don’t understand how you can interpret that as a criticism of your statement about Google searches. I was simply stating that an “in depth” search is impossible. I never said or implied that is what you meant. I agree with you about Google searches.
And then you make the truly mind-bogglingly absurd assertion that I “obviously don’t realize a secretary can do a Google search quickly to see if anything turns up in public files”. I explicitly stated multiple times that the searches by the paralegals would be limited to cursory Google searches. I also explained in detail how a Google search does not include court databases, because those databases are not indexable by search engines. You either didn’t even bother to read my comments, or more likely you are completely incapable of comprehending what I said.
And for some reason you continue to believe that Reddington is a failure and will face some sort of disciplinary proceedings. You are delusional. As I have noted, Reddington did a brilliant job of defending his client. Clancy was not convicted.
And you make the pathetic, whiny assertion that I have made many other errors that you can’t be bothered to address. That is simply a cop-out by a whiny, sniveling moron who has no answer to my factual analysis of the situation.
GSX: ” I falsely accused you of using the term “in depth” “
That was not the accusation. You said a superficial search couldn’t be done. In depth (in-depth) was your word, and it needs a hyphen. You provided a several-page copy. Every step of the way, you require correction, yet you refuse to recognize your errors, shifting the goalposts, etc. My statement was correct and yours wrong.
You are a liar, and a known one. I will repeat your words.
“. It is impossible to do an ***in depth*** investigation of the jury pool. The procedure in Massachusetts is as follows.”
“He did not investigate the jurors as you preposterously claim.”
Neither I nor you know whether he investigated the clients. An in-depth search might have been impossible, but I provided a search of less than ten minutes. You stated that couldn’t be done. You are illiterate.
” It would be impossible for anyone to investigate the backgrounds of the jury members.”
It is not impossible. I explained that an abbreviated search could be performed, and that is where you changed a short search to an in-depth search. That was a lie to make yourself feel better, but everyone knows you are a liar.
“All of this would have disqualified him from jury duty.” “Clearly he perjured himself in his declaration . . .”
Leftists just love to make stuff up.
Both of those assertions are false. (Imagine that.) But when your desire is to smear the opposition, truth is merely a casualty.
In MA, a prior arrest without a conviction is *not* disqualifying. Neither is a felony conviction older than 7 years. Neither is any misdemeanor conviction. Nor is a current restraining order.
He didn’t hold out for “moral reasons”.
I hear voices too. they’re telling me Lindsay is guilty.
The juror lied about his criminal past. May the wrath of Reddington rain down on this disgraceful Masschusetts judicial system.
https://www.tiktok.com/@nbc10boston/video/7684385181007973
Wow. What will be the upshot of this? The only holdout against the womyn, and he’s a domestic abuser.
Couldn’t get your link to work, but this does:
https://www.tiktok.com/@nbc10boston/video/7684385181007973645
This link tells it best:
https://www.tiktok.com/@hunterbidensucksdick/video/crackmakesyousmarter
“What will be the upshot of this?”
Nothing. Because none of the allegations, even if accurate, are disqualifying.
Professor Turley might wish to bring himself up to date on yet another aspect of the disgraceful Masschusetts judicial system. May the wrath of Reddington rain down upon them all. https://www.tiktok.com/@nbc10boston/video/7684385181007973645
Lets do a hypnosis exercise and regress you to your early childhood, warts and all… take a deep breath and now, Imagine your mommy is a Lindsay Clancy supporter. Do you want me to snap my fingers now?
Shabbat shalom everyone 🎊🥂🌷👯🎉🍾🎂💥🥰💯🙏☺️🍷🍞🍷🍞🍷🍞
May God protect us all
God isn’t going to protect us, Smith and Wesson will!
OT
AI—Artificial Intelligence
Congress has absolutely NO power to regulate the technology and software industry per Article 1, Section 8.
The technology and software industry in 1789 would have been equivalent to the precision-manufacturing and scientific-instrument industry.
Article I, Section 8, makes no mention of regulating that sector or any similar sector.
Any attempt to regulate AI would be irrefutably unconstitutional, understanding that the Constitution limits and restricts government while providing maximal freedom to individuals.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
National security
They use this excuse a lot. just have an off switch? It’s an electronic machine after all and it’s ‘ours’. There’s always a switch at the power source at the very least. Don’t provide the AI a physical way to stop you of course, duh. Engineers usually don’t make mistakes like that, akin to a switch wired to a crosswalk button the turns off the power to the entire city. Why would anyone build that ‘feature’? China is taking advantage of the Luddite ignorance in the American public to get a technological edge over us. Please people, send your kid to a technical high school.
The real problem we should be considering is how we will protect ourselves from AI’s we cannot regulate or unplug: The ones our adversaries are building in their data centers now. I’m hoping National Security is paying close attention to that!
I, too. The machines are living. They eat water and resupply their own energy like mitochondria. 😏. Hydraulic press might work.
Cite a legal basis please, Counselor Darrow.
any jurors are speaking to the press are opportunists and must not be trusted to follow any instructions because they are seeking their fame instead of justice. They disqualified themselves after the fact. reprehensible.
I watched the 3 jurors on TV and they were wallowing in the attention. Disgusting.
All that was missing was the kiffiyehs
It should have no legal significance, but it may possibly help to explain what happened – it now appears that the holdout juror in the Clancy trial was a Black man, and the only person of color on the 12-person jury. Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf, George Washington University Law School.
HOW does that in any way explain what happened?
A GW law prof was on the jury? Very funny…
There is a further story that he is alleged to have beaten his wife leading to a divorce, and pummelled his nephew leading to a restraining order, and is being evicted for non-payment of rent. Oh, and his relatives say he’s a narcissist. His jury form now needs to be checked to see if he lied on it with respect to his encounters with the law.
If this true, I do not want to know any of the other 11’s background details!
Jurys full of people too dumb to know how to get out of jury duty.
It HAS been checked. He lied.
Doesn’t matter. None of his *alleged* past actions are ground for disqualification in MA.
Legal Cases In The News:
Trump Attempted A Frame-Up
The contractor that renovated the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has told the Trump administration that errors in its own work and flaws in the repair plan, not vandalism, caused the pool’s new blue liner to peel and break loose, according to government documents reviewed by The New York Times.
President Trump has repeatedly blamed vandals wielding knives or box cutters for damage to the pool’s “American flag blue” liner, even after the Justice Department dropped charges that it had brought against people accused of vandalizing the national landmark.
But the documents, which have not previously been reported, make clear that the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings, found problems in both the design and the execution of the renovation. The documents include Atlantic’s reports to the government as well as daily progress updates from the National Park Service over the past two months.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/11/climate/reflecting-pool-contractor-trump.html?smid=nytcore
…………………………………………..
Here we have it: Trump attempted to frame innocent passersby for crimes never committed. Illustrating once again that Trump is totally unfit to serve. Yet when asked to comment on this story, a spokesperson for the Department of Interior refused to concede the contractor’s admission.
And when Biden was unfit to serve for so many reasons, where were critics, like you?
Do you think Kamala would have been a better commander in chief?
Sometimes when you pray for rain you gotta deal with mud
Estovir, is that all you have for ‘reasoning’???
The logic seems to be that because Biden appeared feeble, Trump has a right to frame innocent people.
The truth is that Trump is both feeble and corrupt; factors far worse than Biden.
feeble? https://donaldtrump.golf/
Biden was weak and so the Chinese Communist Party did not see him as a threat. That’s why we get these CCP bots spewing lies and propaganda about Trump, but they never did about Biden. (The commenter you responded to is a CCO bot, not a human being.)
Biden(s) took CCP ca$h. That’s what made him not a threat.
This trial of a mother, a labor and delivery room nurse, who planned the strangulation of her three young children, one eight months old, by the conscious diversion of her husband on errands that kept him out of the house so she could murder her children, occurred in a State that hysterically accused more than 200 citizens of being witches and hanged 19 of them, a state where in the 1980s it tried and (falsely) convicted owners of the Fells Acre Day Care of child abuse and child rape, including the insertion of knives and sticks into the children’s rectum despite no physical evidence of injury, a State that permits abortion of a viable fetus at gestational term up to the moment of delivery, a trial characterized by a collection of women outside the courthouse during the trial that criticized the prosecution of caring more about the three dead children than their murderous mother. Just what is it about Massachusetts that can explain this aberrancy?
See: https://www.sashastone.com/p/mass-hysteria-in-massachusetts-again
The Greeks created democracy in 508 B.C.
They did not allow women to vote, and they did not allow the poor to vote.
They allowed capable, ambitious, and successful men to vote.
The communists have talked you idiots into allowing these dolts to vote, and what they vote for is your money.
The American Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic wherein turnout in the first election was 11.6%.
What the —- are you people doing?
Seriously!
An abundance of liberal white women
3 generations of women on SSRI’s wallowing in a perpetual state of emotion
Entire towns dedicated to just that, believe it or not!
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/massachusetts/female-population-percentage#map
The juror lied about his criminal past. May the wrath of Reddington rain down on this disgraceful Masschusetts judicial system.
https://www.tiktok.com/@nbc10boston/video/7684385181007973
All women on SSRI’S need to state they are them in voir dire
Those accusers of women were the religious right, conservatives as were those making false accusations about the day care.
They are still among us and many of them are behind Project 2025, the blueprint Trump has followed this term.
“Religious right” – what a quaint insult, a throwback to the 1980s.
As for the witch trials, it was some crazies that did it, and Bible-believing ministers put a stop to it.
So take your insult and SIUYA.
Project 2025, the blueprint Trump has followed this term
You must be one of those hysterical Massachusetts residents. Trump has been consistently accused by you morons of endorsing Project 2025, when in fact he had nothing to do with it, never read it, and doesn’t endorse it. GFY
If what you say is true, then explain to me why Trump signed 180 Executive Orders on Day One that were drafted by Project 2025 authors and why so many Project 2025 proponents have prominent positions in his administration.
The only proof you have to the contrary is Trump denying knowledge of Project 2025. and he is a chronic, habitual liar.
Yet today’s lefty’s think they are literally the virtuous “moral majority”. Ironic, I know.
Virtue signalling is simply narcissism. If someone truly wants to do good, they don’t need or even consider any recognition or payback or pats on the back (or head) or something put up on the fridge. They simply understand the concept, are motivated internally, make decisions, and are self-satisfied with themselves because they didn’t let themselves down. Those are the sorts of people who know who they are.
🤔 Massachusetts is an ancient Indian burial ground? The 19 people hanged as witchery still roam the land? It’s land area is a Bermuda triangle?
a LOT of vampires were buried in old new england as well. A LOT. just sayin
leftys do have a way of making you feel ‘drained’.
Vincente, quite a plot summary. I was just thinking Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes.
There’s more here to this horrific crime. It’s not all revealed. There’s an element to it that makes every mentally ill person a concern for safety of others and the afflicted.
Even if she had been convicted of pre-meditated murder, it’s libtardia Massachusetts. She would get 3 squares, free room and board, free dental, free healthcare, conjugal visitation for the rest of her miserable life in a State prison without any chance of parole. Her chance of a death penalty in Massachusetts is slim.
An insanity plea would place her in a State hospital for the criminally insane where some libtard psychologist would claim her cured after 10-15 years and then they would release her back into society.
She brutally strangled three tiny children that loved and trusted her to protect them. Yes, she was crazy at the moment but who then isn’t that does such a thing? Who isn’t out of their mind insane in the moment while murdering someone in a blind rage or drug induced rage or a drunken stupor.
She should be put to death for her crimes.
Being crazy isn’t a crime and if you are crazy and do something because you are hallucinating —you have not committed a crime.
All the evidence pointed to a loving mother who snapped because of postpartum psychosis.
Being crazy isn’t a crime, until you kill three innocent children. Murder is a crime.
You tell me how someone flipping out emotionally while taking medication and killing someone is any different than some drug addled fool coked out or an alcoholic on a bender going completely out of their mind and ending up with killing somebody.
Murder is murder, justice is for the victims, justice demands a reckoning.
The evidence for Trump having had a left sided stroke is becoming more evident. There is clear evidence of right sided weakness, but not complete paralysis.
At the Pentagon 9/11 ceremony today he fell asleep, as expected, and as he relaxed the right side of his face showed significant drooping. In addition, in recent videos of him walking, he swings his right leg outwards. This is the classic circumduction seen in individuals who have had a stroke with weakness on one side. The stroke causes foot drop, limited dorsiflexion of the ankle. This makes it difficult to walk because the toes tend to drag due to weakened dorsiflexion. The individual compensates by swinging the leg to the side to elevate the foot and prevent the toes from dragging.
Also, as he walks he frequently taps his right thigh. This is a typical recommendation made by physiotherapists to stimulate muscles that have been “weakened” by stroke. The muscles are not inherently weakened, but the impaired neural stimulation caused by the stroke limits function of the muscles. Light tapping serves to indirectly stimulate the muscles and enhance function.
The evidence for Trump having had a left sided stroke is becoming more evident.
===========
The evidence for Tree Hugging, Wing Nut, TDS Impaired Commie Fools having Trump induced hallucinations is patently manifest.
The evidence for Tree Hugging, Wing Nut, TDS Impaired Commie Fools having Trump induced hallucinations is patently manifest.
That or the troll gets paid by the keystroke. Think about his obscene number of posts: who in their right mind living in West Hollywood, California like our resident TDS Troll (he told us years ago he hikes the hills of West Hollywood), would be posting from 7 AM Eastern Time (where the blog server is located) but 4 AM Pacific Time up until 3 AM Eastern Time (midnight Pacific time) if not for pay? It has to be major bucks (compliments of George Soros numerous left wing nuts troll farms) to post such crapola day after day, hour after hour, and post mainly AI content or, worse, comments reflecting projection e.g. Estovir is using sock puppets! Um, no, I have the gravitas to use my Avatar when I post at most 3x per day, little of it terribly serious. OTOH, the TDS Troll indeed has used sock puppets on this forum for as long as I’ve been reading JT’s blog (2019).
This guy can’t possibly be totally nuts where he is incapable of doing anything else but troll a blog, unless if he is paid to do so. No one would do this for free after more than a few months. But for pay? Sure, why not. His comments have all of the elements of a David “batsh*t crazy” Brock nut job.
👍🏾
Estovir,
Yeah, the old “Trump is suffering from . . . whatever!”
The annonys trot that one out every few months and it never lasts past a day or two. No one believes it. And after a few appearances, interviews, off the cuff press conferences, it is obvious Trump is not suffering from anything.
Just more TDS induced delusions.
After the 4 days he played golf, he took 4 days off (busy guy).
Are you saying Trump is so incredibly healthy that this stroke hasn’t added a stroke to his golf game?
You must be as amazed as I am, maybe he actually spent his billions on obtaining super powers. That would explain a lot.
Donald Trump Golf Tracker
https://donaldtrump.golf/
There is a basic underlying flaw to Turley’s claim: “…right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors but the world.” This is similar to the claim in Turley’s initial post about the case, in which he claimed that the holdout was standing on some kind of “moral” ground, like Henry Fonda’s character in “12 Angry Men”, to which he compared this person. Turley’s initial post came out before the interviews with the other jurors, in which they made clear that the holdout DID have reasonable doubt, but couldn’t get past Clancy’s conduct–which was NOT the issue to be decided. The issue was whether Clancy killed her children because of postpartum psychosis, versus some malign reason.
The holdout refused to discuss the evidence with the other jurors even after the judge ordered the jury to keep “deliberating”. “Deliberating” means discussing the evidence and reasons why you think it leads to one verdict or another. According to reports from other jurors the holdout was “fixated” on “too much blood”, he wouldn’t discuss forensic expert testimony explaining blood spatter and what it means, he spent most of the deliberation time watching videos on his phone and talking to people on his phone, he was unwilling to engage with the other jurors in discussions about reasonable doubt, and when asked to explain what evidence he was relying on in refusing to acquit, he shut down and just wouldn’t answer. Some jurors described him as “arrogant” and “very arrogant”. The holdout tied exercise bands around his neck and mimicked strangulation, which shocked the other jurors, and they considered this evidence of his cavalier attitude about his responsibilities as a juror. There was never any dispute that Clancy killed the children in this manner. If that were the only issue and was, in and of itself, sufficient to convict, there would be no reason for a trial. The holdout simply refused to do his duty, even after agreeing that there was reasonable doubt that Clancy was in control of her faculties.
Turley got it wrong–the first time and this time–there wasn’t any “moral conviction” or “one man standing against the world”–it was just some A-hole with an attitude who refused to follow the instructions from the judge–and that is not a “moral conviction”. But, like all MAGA media and their leader, he cannot be wrong, so he goes after Kevin Reddington, who, based on reports from othe other jurors, won the case–he established reasonable doubt–but the holdout was enjoying the power he had in denying Clancy the verdict she was entitled to. Of course Reddington was upset–and, he had every right to be. Look how much time, money and effort went into this case only to have the result sabotaged by some jerk who failed to do his duty as a juror. If he had engaged with the other jurors, or could point to some evidence he believed supported his refusal to acquit, that would be another thing entirely–but that’s not what happened here. He should have been removed.
Tell us you know nothing about the law, with out telling us that you know nothing about the law 😭
The Anon post is just one more example of the AI-enabled Dunning-Kruger effect. Such is likely to be the new norm on this and many other blogs.
-g
The Anon post is just one more example of the AI-enabled Dunning-Kruger effect.
==========
In Karate we called it “The White Belt Effect”, where a newbie with a certain type of cocky predisposition, with just 3 or 4 weeks of training with the White Belt (beginner) designation would learn 2 or 3 kicks; for instance a front snap kick, a round house kick, and say a side kick. Then all the sudden they turned into Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris and thought they were Superman. Needless to say those types learned a lesson very fast. They didn’t last long. Never did, never will.
Your post is : Hearsay, Rumors, Gossip
No Facts
Exactly.
Everything you have stated as fact is nothing but hearsay.
He did this he said that, he was arrogant, blah blah blah
If someone who was frustrated with you made assertions about your inner motives, would you want the whole world to judge you before hearing your side of the story? Of course not, but that’s exactly what you’re doing to the holdout juror.
Your judgment against him – and even calling him an “A-hole” – is based solely on what other people have said about him. You are ready to come to firm conclusions about his thought processes, and condemn his motives, without waiting to first hear what he has to say for himself.
5 bucks says the commenter is on SSRI’S herself.
Possibly. One thing is clear, she’s jumping through hoops to excuse the killing of three innocent young children, not once even hinting that she recognizes such killings are a problem. That is not normal.
YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that THERE WAS NO ISSUE THAT LINDSAY CLANCY KILLED THE CHILDREN. That was admitted. If that fact, alone, was enough to convict her of murder, there would be no reason for a trial. The issue was whether she was insane when she did it. The judge instructed the jury that if there was reasonable doubt that she had control of her mental faculties, then the state would have failed to prove murder or other lesser-included crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittal was required. No one is “excusing” anything. Of course the killings were a problem–but not murder because all evidence pointed to a good mother who was overwhelmed by mental illness and snapped. Even her husband and mother in law testified that she was a good mother who loved her children. There was no evidence of abuse or neglect, but plenty of evidence of mental illness. She had reached out repeatedly to the suicide hotline. She was on multiple psychotropic medications, some of which worsen depression and suicide ideation. She had been hospitalized for a time. She reached out to her psychiatrist but only got a nurse practitioner. She tried to kill herself, too. She reported hearing voices compelling her to kill herself and the children.
YOU are the one who refuses to acknowledge that THERE WAS NO ISSUE THAT LINDSAY CLANCY KILLED THE CHILDREN.
I’m well aware of that and have never denied it. I don’t know what you’re even talking about.
Your whole approach to this case is to excuse the killer. The defense team could not get 12 jurors to agree that the state failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the mistrial, and a possible retrial. But that’s not good enough for you . . .
YOU are the one that is not okay with that result, based on YOUR personal interpretation of the evidence. You rail day and night about how the one holdout juror somehow cheated. Yet, the only evidence you have for that is tainted and unreliable. YOU are the one who is so dead set on saying she should have been acquitted rather than a hung jury, that there MUST have been something nefarious that the one holdout juror did. Your zeal to excuse Clancy by claiming she was not guilty notwithstanding that she could not get a unanimous jury verdict to that effect is a problem. You gloss over the possibility that maybe the holdout juror is right and the other 11 are wrong. That IS a possibility, which is why unanimity is required to acquit. But, you will NEVER concede that that is even a possibility because your mind is closed.
You’re quite gullible?
There is this thing where relationship breakups result in revenge killings with the intent to make the surviving spouse suffer.
Society frowns upon that kind of thing.
“Society frowns . . .”
As does the surviving spouse.
old man: numerous other jurors have been interviewed, by several different journalists–and they all say the same thing. You are a perfect example of MAGA–you believe what MAGA media tells you to believe, and cannot be swayed by anything–facts, statements of people with actual knowledge of what happened because they were there–nothing can get you to budge, and that’s the kind of person MAGA relies on–it takes someone like this to fall for the lies of a chronic, habitual liar like Trump. Just like the endless Big Lie Trump just can’t let go of. He did NOT win in 2020, he was not cheated out of a “landslide victory” by widespread fraud, there were not large numbers of people voting multiple times, dead people voting, non-citizens voting after they died, ballots being discarded, or fraud with mail ballots. No matter how much proof is provided to you, you refuse to accept it because Trump says so. And, you MAGAs accuse other people of being “deranged”.
There is no question about “motives” for someone who won’t discuss evidence with other jurors, who watches videos and talks to people on the phone instead of discussing the evidence during deliberations, who refuses to “deliberate” (meaning discussing the evidence and what he thinks it means for the verdict) even after being ordered to do so by the judge and who mocks the death of the children by pretending to strangle himself with exercise bands. He admitted reasonable doubt, but refused to follow the judge’s instruction that if there is reasonable doubt, they were to acquit. This juror’s refusal to engage in deliberations was reported to the judge in open count. Yet, you refuse to believe the other jurors and defend this person. That’s the MAGA effect.
As I pointed out before, you make condemning judgments about someone before hearing him out . . . all based on hearsay from a very biased source. YES, the other jurors are biased because they were very frustrated with him.
And . . . your whole goal on this comment board is to justify the killing of young children. You still have not evidenced any concept that there is anything wrong with killing children. Your whole purpose in life is to excuse the killer.
Separately, by bringing Trump and MAGA into everything, you also show that you are very, very mentally ill. You are completely blind to your own mental illness. Your whole life is consumed by hate. I feel sorry for you because you’re obviously very, very miserable. I hope someday you find the help you desperately need.
Go easy on Gigi. She has daddy issues. Trump is a stand in for her own father who neglected her, so he is a convenient target of her hatred, and then all conservatives by extension are as well.
OldManFromKS,
Well said.
Quite amazing the mind reading GSX/Gigi/Natasha/Wally/Esquire can do.
explain a juror’s motive for being interviewed on TV.
Is this your essay assignment on “defining liberal justice in the next century”?
So you’re saying he didn’t vote ‘correctly’? What ‘duty’? He did have a duty to vote his opinion and he did. That’s the definition of morals. ALL morals are convictions when closely held but how would you know that?
His “opinion” was that there was reasonable doubt— several jurors said so— but he didn’t care what the law required him to do— he refused to acquit or deliberate further and just watched videos and talked on the phone.
I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues.
here’s a good segue prior to a debate with Kevin
Q. What do you call 100 lawyers skydiving out of an airplane?
A. Skeet.
Q: Why won’t sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.
Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand [cement]?
A: Not enough sand [cement].
Q: How do you get a lawyer out of a tree?
A: Cut the rope.
Q: Do you know how to save a drowning lawyer?
A1: Take your foot off his head.
A2: Throw him a rock.
A3: No.
Q: What is the definition of a shame (as in “that’s a shame”)?
A: When a busload of lawyers goes off a cliff.
Q: What is the definition of a “crying shame”?
A: There was an empty seat.
Q: You’re trapped in a room with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. You have a gun with two bullets. What should you do?
A: Shoot the lawyer. Twice.
http://www.jamesfuqua.com/lawyers/jokes/qa.shtml
Q: What’s the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
A: There are skid marks in front of the snake.
Anonymous
Good one, although that sounds more like your underwear.
I was also critical of his motions to substitute a holdout juror with an alternate as running against the overwhelming authority in the area.
I see that as within the bounds of appropriate advocacy. But the attacking of the juror was not, it was an attack on the system of law that we have. Each juror must vote according to how he or she sees the evidence, and understands the instructions. What other jurors – who are frustrated with that one juror – say about him is completely irrelevant.
no offense with my above lawyer jokes comment, oldmanfromkansas (charter member of the Council of Estovir)
😉
None taken, I enjoy lawyer jokes. My favorite is the “professional courtesy.”
Q. What’s the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?
A. One is a scum-sucking bottom dweller, and the other is a fish,
*are you sure Tyler Robinson confessed .. . and then pleaded ‘not guilty’?
He confessed to his lover. You can read his messages to his lover here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99g1e0z2ero
I can’t let this one go. Someone with your REACH owes it to your followers and the public to be fair, rational, and deliberative in your commentary. Today’s article meets NONE of those criteria. Again I will repeat the most egregious violation of your responsibilities: “Most importantly, Clancy took steps that showed planning and control of her actions, including researching how long it would take her misdirected husband to return.” “Misdirected husband”?!?!? What neither you, nor any other of the witch burners, seems to understand is the idea of BASE RATES. Reddington should have asked Patrick: “How many nights a month, on average, did you and Lindsay order “out”? And how many nights per month, on average, did Lindsay send you on short shopping errands? The Clancy couple were a professional couple who were financially well off, two careers and three children. Have you ever stopped to ponder, Herr Professor, the PRIOR PROBABILITY of ordering food and child medicines on any given night? The prosecution — and YOU — wanted us to think it was some weird or unlikely request that Lindsay made that night. Hardly! I have lived that life and we only had one child and I can guarantee you that pick-up and last-minute errands are a staple of the lifestyle. Again I’m very disappointed in you, for these incautious statements and conjectures in your article. Salem, indeed.
“. . . the PRIOR PROBABILITY of ordering food and child medicines on any given night?”
If the errand she sent him on that night was so routine, why did she consult ahead of time a mapping app, to determine how long he would be gone?
You’re right, though, on this point: It was Salem — only in reverse. Mass hysteria used to exonerate a woman who is a three-time murderer.
That’s what a witch would say!
Psychosis: Delusions, hallucinations, incoherent speech and behavior, disconnected from reality, lack of intellectual reasoning. If Clancy was in a full blown psychosis so how then could she have been able to use her cell phone, perform all the research that was required to keep her husband busy doing all the errands that she instructed him to do, continue texting and speaking to him on the cell phone after he left to run errands, and even make calls to threeV restaurant and CVS? Answer, she couldn’t have done all that in the midst of a psychosis! Therefore, she was NOT in a psychosis! Individuals in the midst of a full blown psychosis do NOT that the required reasoning ability to perform and complete those tasks!
As crazy as it sounds, a U.S. Tomahawk missile killed 150 schoolgirls in Minab, Iran, on feb. 28 .. . would you advise letting the perpetrators of that dastardly deed off the hook by reason of insanity?
Why is post-partum psychosis a uniquely ‘reasonable doubt’ this woman murdered her own children? I have no doubt her mental condition prompted her to do it. .. a sad tragedy I expect will ‘keep her up at night’ whether she is found guilty or innocent [in a court of law].
Don’t think she was born that way. .. and I doubt any verdict of law will assuage her ‘psychosis’.
*if ‘insanity’ (crazy) is a reasonable defense . .. Trump should win in a landslide.
You’re not found innocent in criminal trials. You are found not guilty.
Clearly you don’t understand what psychosis is. A simple google search could help you.
you google that often?
Venue shopping. How many people in South Carolina would have voted to free the four Lincoln conspirators? They were hanged within three months.
Reddington was out-of-line and now he’s proven thin-skinned. Age does that to you.
I find it ironic that Reddington took his anger out on one hold out juror when if it had been 11-1 to convicted he would have been praising that same juror. The fact ?that the other jurors said the holdout expressed he had REASONABLE DOUBT, in my mind is full of doubt about the truth of those self serving statements. The juror may have expressed he had doubts about her sanity, but may or may not have said it was beyond a reasonable doubt. Until we hear from that juror about his reasoning, and his actual statements, nothing said on this blog blaming the holdout juror has any validity.