This case is another example that the white privilege that exists is for liberal white women

Liberals are the mental equivalent of a three year old.

They want things their way and if the rules go against them, well, just get rid of them.

(09-12-2026 09:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Liberals are the mental equivalent of a three year old.

They want things their way and if the rules go against them, well, just get rid of them.

They're stupid children who deserve to be treated as such.

(09-12-2026 08:29 AM)CliftonAve2 Wrote:  This case is another example that the white privilege that exists is for liberal white women

You make a very good point. Would the results been the same had every ethnicity been different? I guess we will never know how much the other side hates their mothers.

(09-12-2026 08:29 AM)CliftonAve2 Wrote:  This case is another example that the white privilege that exists is for liberal white women

you got that right....

(09-12-2026 08:29 AM)CliftonAve2 Wrote:  This case is another example that the white privilege that exists is for liberal white women

True.

Fox News Legal Analyst Jonathan Turley Thoroughly Dismantles Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney After Debate Challenge

Quote:I was surprised to learn this morning that Kevin Reddington challenged me to a debate in an interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas over my criticism of his attack, https://shorturl.at/FzOun, on the holdout juror in the Clancy trial. I am curious as to what is debatable in his view: the professional duty of lawyers not to fuel the rage against a holdout juror or his apparent self-exemption from that duty

The Clancy Trial: When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man

Quote:Below is my column on the attack unleashed by defense counsel Kevin Reddington on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. As I said immediately during the coverage, I considered the attack utterly reprehensible and worthy of intervention by Judge William Sullivan. Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.

Here is the column:

“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?”

Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”

It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.

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.”

The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.

Take the 1957 classic movie. Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant. But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability.

Imagine the movie’s outcome if Reddington’s approach had been accepted in 1957, where Fonda could be pulled into court, questioned about his intransigence, and ultimately replaced with an alternate in order to flip the vote.

For all of the anger it has generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. The trial showed zealous counsel on both sides and a conscientious judge who ensured a fair trial despite the powerful emotions in society.

You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.

That is why some of us were so shocked by Reddington’s public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob, not leading it. In another great movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch, standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob.

Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual’s ability to stand alone. He tells his daughter Scout, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

Quote:A man objected to allowing a woman to kill her three young kids and get away with it, so NBC is trying to smear that juror, whose identity should be protected. Another low for legacy media. If the juror is being harassed, Florida will provide asylum — I’m sure he’d be welcomed and appreciated. — Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) September 11, 2026

A liberal white lady killed her kids and the people of Massachusetts are more angry at the black man who wanted to find her guilty

That's wild

(09-12-2026 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  A liberal white lady killed her kids and the people of Massachusetts are more angry at the black man who wanted to find her guilty

That's wild

Liberalism is a mental illness.

Reddington is already under review by the Bar in Massachusetts for a few other things.

NBC Boston slammed for smearing holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy case after he refused not guilty verdict

Quote:We’ve never seen anything like this before. A man was conscripted into jury duty by the government. He performed his civic duty and followed his conscience, refusing to acquit a woman who confessed to systematically executing her three children. The defense attorney immediately launched a public smear campaign against the juror. Soon several other jurors joined the campaign. Then the media. Even the defense attorney’s wife has joined. Now they’re doxxing the man, digging into his past, contacting his family, showing up at his house. All of this both to punish him for refusing to go with their program, and to pollute any future jury pool by making it clear that anyone who votes to convict Clancy will have their life destroyed. It’s truly one of the most outrageously evil things we’ve ever seen from the Left, and that’s saying something. A direct assault on the integrity of our justice system. They are burning down every boundary and standard in their path. And doing it all for the sake of a child murdering psychopath. Unfathomable.

Does he have a case to sue? He is protected under law and they shouldn't even know what the final verdict count was. One could argue the trial court out this man in danger for letting that get out

(09-12-2026 12:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Does he have a case to sue? He is protected under law and they shouldn't even know what the final verdict count was. One could argue the trial court out this man in danger for letting that get out

I would think he would be able to sue. The way I see it, if this able to stand the way they are going after this man or anyone. A lot of people will not want to show up for jury duty and a lot of them don't in some cases anyway. I have been called for jury duty 5 or 6 times. Two of those times I was picked to be on a jury. First time was a car jacking and the other was a rape of a teenager by her father a couple of years ago. If someone feels that they might be threaten because of how they vote in the jury room. They will not show up. I know some judges will have some people rounded up if they don't show up for duty but not sure how often that happens. What they are doing to this man is uncalled for.

The ramifications of harassing the brave juror are quite serious. If people serving on a jury fear for their reputation, their privacy, and their lives; then they will be much less likely to serve.

Who can blame them?

(09-12-2026 12:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Does he have a case to sue? He is protected under law and they shouldn't even know what the final verdict count was. One could argue the trial court out this man in danger for letting that get out

I do not know, but the law cited above seems to support it.

the fact that this juror had DV allegations dismissed means he has experience with batsh*t crazy women.....

I said he should sue the Defense attorney the day the mistrial was ordered.

(09-12-2026 01:42 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The ramifications of harassing the brave juror are quite serious. If people serving on a jury fear for their reputation, their privacy, and their lives; then they will be much less likely to serve.

Who can blame them?

And what is weird is the pressure is usually on someone who votes not guilty after a heinous crime.

Why are they so upset??? Sounds like 9 angry women and 2 hapless men.