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 ...
For what it’s worth — part of the AI discussion is AI as a tool or AI as a General Intelligence (AGI).
SkyNet is a general intelligence. It can do anything. If it gets out into the world, it can take advantage of systems and cause a wide variety of problems.
An AI tool (perhaps as a jury replacement) could be a local program, running on a disconnected computer system and designed for a single purpose: like a word processor. Your word processor isn’t going to takeover the world, and a logic-processor that evaluates legal evidence will also not takeover the world. Tools like this may cause layoffs if they perform work better than humans, but that’s about as much damage as they can do.
Jury selection is accomplished by first listening to the comments between them in the staging area. Visual characteristics are also observed. A sequential group of jurors are then taken to a separate room in surplus of the twelve needed. The prosecution/defense can then question specific individuals in order to release them from service until twelve remain.
More so the biases of the reference data.
I watched a trial where a female witness was stopped and scolded for over-answering. She turned to the judge and asked, “You honor, how am I supposed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth if I am verbally edited?”. The judge let her answer as desired; and, her testimony changed the outcome.
Did you see the Pratt movie “Mercy” about a cop being judged by an AI?
You would have to use a general intelligence as a jury; otherwise, it wouldn’t have the scope required.
Justice in this Nation has been completely perverted. They are using innocent/guilty findings to control sentencing.
But who is the one listening? The judge?
He should have declared a mistrial when the women came in wearing pink shirts.
No. The defendant can sit in the jury pool. The judge is usually busy elsewhere.
Perfect! As it should be.
9 of the 12 jurors had two X chromosomes (XX), sad!
As far as we know. They could snuck in a tranny or two...........
I’m just wondering how impartial is the one who picks the jury pool. One is led to believe the nine jurors who all felt the defense was right were impartial to begin with but what if they were noted to be leftist feminist leaning and were picked by someone who wanted that verdict to go that way.
The process seems to fair.
It does seem that more senior people are called to duty than young people.
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.