Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

REVEALED: Here is How The Female Jurors Reacted When The Judge Declared a Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial (VIDEO)
The Gateway Pundit ^ | September 4, 2026 | Cullen Linebarger

Posted on 09/05/2026 1:41:53 PM PDT by Red Badger

Some intriguing information has come out regarding the feelings of the female jurors after they failed in their quest to let Lindsay Clancy get away with murdering her three little children. And it's safe to say they were not happy.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Judge William Sullivan officially declared a mistrial today in the Clancy murder trial while defense attorney Kevin Reddington melted down.

Reddington later asked the Massachusetts Supreme Court for relief, which was denied.

This was all made possible allegedly due to one brave male juror who refused to give in to bullying from both Clancy's defense team and the female jurors.

Following Judge Sullivan's declaration of a mistrial, CNN's Jean Casarez shared some very interesting details regarding the reactions of the female jurors, all of whom wanted Clancy to walk.

First, all of the jurors were tense as the judge spoke. One female was in despair as she shook her head, while another angrily clenched her fists.

Another woman was so distraught that she could not open her eyes.

Casarez then shared that another dismayed female juror pursed her lips while another nodded her head.

WATCH:

Female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial were in total shambles as the judge declared a mistrial thanks to a lone holdout juror.

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: casarez; clancy; getawaywithmurder; thegatewaypundit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: Bullish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Fisher


81 posted on 09/05/2026 3:23:50 PM PDT by Red Badger (Iryna Zarutska, May 22, 2002 Kyiv, Ukraine – August 22, 2025 Charlotte, North Carolina Say her name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: glennaro
Is this what "modern feminism" has become?

Modern feminism was hatched this way. It has, from the very beginning, seen children as an inconvenience to be eliminated.

82 posted on 09/05/2026 3:27:32 PM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I have to be honest... that surprised me. I didnt think they had whack jobs back then. and they didnt have the medications women have now to use as an excuse.

And that was the time is all started...

“After four years, partly due to a national effort to deinstitutionalize mental patients, Constance was released into her husband’s custody on March 6, 1959.”


83 posted on 09/05/2026 3:39:58 PM PDT by sit-rep (I may be Dumb, but I'm not Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Flaming Conservative

Get 12 Muslims for the next jury and have the prosecution weave Quranic phrases and principles during the case and paint the defendant as the embodiment of jinn witchcraft.


84 posted on 09/05/2026 3:43:33 PM PDT by HombreSecreto (The life of a repo man is always intense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

It’s time to repeal the 19th Amendment. It was a terrible mistake. Women should no longer be permitted to hold political office or serve on juries.

They’ve proven themselves incapable of handling that responsibility.

Prove me wrong.

L


85 posted on 09/05/2026 3:46:23 PM PDT by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I’m a mother of two great people and I’d have had NO POBLEM In convicting her for what this obviously was - premeditated murder.

I might have had some sympathy for her if she had left the kids out of it and just offed herself.


86 posted on 09/05/2026 3:55:52 PM PDT by Aria (Voted for Trump 2016, 2020 & 10/22/2024 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Empire_of_Liberty
Did they act like they shouldn’t be voting?

I wouldn't even want one of them to make me a sammich.

87 posted on 09/05/2026 4:09:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (The Marxist Media works hand in glove with the Democrat terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep

She killed 6 children but since she drowned we will never know why.......


88 posted on 09/05/2026 4:13:58 PM PDT by Red Badger (Iryna Zarutska, May 22, 2002 Kyiv, Ukraine – August 22, 2025 Charlotte, North Carolina Say her name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

How was that jury not vetted better than in was by the prosecutor?


89 posted on 09/05/2026 4:30:18 PM PDT by FrdmLvr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray51

Most definitely


90 posted on 09/05/2026 4:36:53 PM PDT by dkGba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

One eye open kiddies. Mommy ain’t done exercising her rights. Procrastination isn’t a crime. Keep an escape plan on hand.


91 posted on 09/05/2026 4:56:24 PM PDT by blackdog (The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10

I bet all the women were Democrats. I can’t understand how they would think is OK to murder your own kids?


92 posted on 09/05/2026 4:59:19 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (. War is Hell, War IS a Crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"That fact was never in dispute. The trial was to determine if she should be held accountable for it or be excused......"

How can that be? She murdered her children. And you're saying the trial was about whether or not she should be punished? I don't think the law reads like that.

93 posted on 09/05/2026 5:01:20 PM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY

Here’s what the judge gave the jury in the instructions:

BRAVE AI:

The jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial had five potential verdict options to decide her fate:

First-degree murder: Requires proof of deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity/cruelty, punishable by life in prison without parole.

Second-degree murder: Requires proof of criminal responsibility but without the specific aggravating factors of first-degree, punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Manslaughter: Requires proof of wanton and reckless conduct resulting in death, punishable by up to 20 years in prison per count.

Not guilty by reason of insanity (lack of criminal responsibility): A finding that a mental disease or defect prevented Clancy from understanding her actions were wrong or controlling her conduct, leading to indefinite psychiatric commitment rather than prison.

Not guilty: An acquittal based on the prosecution failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy killed the children, which would result in her immediate release.

Ultimately, the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on any of these five options, resulting in a mistrial declared by Judge William Sullivan on September 4, 2026.


94 posted on 09/05/2026 5:06:08 PM PDT by Red Badger (Iryna Zarutska, May 22, 2002 Kyiv, Ukraine – August 22, 2025 Charlotte, North Carolina Say her name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

It’s Massachusetts.........


95 posted on 09/05/2026 5:08:07 PM PDT by Red Badger (Iryna Zarutska, May 22, 2002 Kyiv, Ukraine – August 22, 2025 Charlotte, North Carolina Say her name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ah! Reason of insanity is the out.

Thank you!


96 posted on 09/05/2026 5:12:17 PM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
So Laws matters not, only how it makes women feel.
Sigh. We are Lost.

97 posted on 09/05/2026 5:21:25 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Can you imagine replacing the legal profession with AI.
They could learn to code


98 posted on 09/05/2026 5:21:57 PM PDT by Keyhopper (Indians had bad immigration laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MV=PY

Do people realize that if she does finally get off via the insanity plea, or a straight ‘not guilty’, they might unleash a wave of child murders all across not just the USA but the world at large?..............


99 posted on 09/05/2026 5:23:37 PM PDT by Red Badger (Iryna Zarutska, May 22, 2002 Kyiv, Ukraine – August 22, 2025 Charlotte, North Carolina Say her name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: shelterguy
I don’t know what the answer is.

I don't either, but I do think we need to do something that takes 'maneuvering' out of the verdict.

First, I think the prosecutors and defense should be required to provide their versions of the case in writing. The jurors should be required to read all of this before the trial. The data can 'also' (not exclusively) be provided by video, and the jurors should be required to review this AND the written record. All of this should be required before the actual trial (but after jury selection).

I say this because the determination of verdict for too many trials is not based on the truth, but on what evidence and data the jury has been allowed to see. This is determined by legal maneuvering that is too often designed to conceal the truth rather than reveal it. Second, I think people on the witness stand should be allowed to say exactly what they think, not what the legal mechanics will let them say (e.g. "Object! Hearsay!). This should be true for both sides. Before the jury is sent out to deliberate they should be provided with further written (or digital) reports that delineate the parts of the testimony that are 'hearsay' or unverified, questionable, etc.

It shouldn't be that real exculpatory or incriminating evidence is blocked by attorneys. If it is questionable evidence, label it as such.

100 posted on 09/05/2026 5:31:50 PM PDT by neverevergiveup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson