Posted on 09/08/2026 3:16:19 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
The jury foreperson in Lindsay Clancy’s high-stakes triple murder trial detailed just how close the panel was to finding the killer mom not guilty by reason of insanity until one “arrogant” male holdout juror blocked the verdict.
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched the video of the interview,” the female juror told NBC 10 Boston in an interview with two other women jury members.
“I started filling out forms, I was so excited,” the woman said.
“There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”
One of the three was named Paula and is a former government contractor. Another, Kelly, is a chef in Plymouth, and the foreperson, Ronnie, is a retired fifth-grade special needs teacher.
The jurors called the holdout “arrogant” for refusing to go along with the rest.
One of the jurors told the outlet that the “prosecution didn’t show enough compassion.”
“I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” she said.
“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother … I found it to be biased.”
The foreperson said all the witnesses and evidence “proved that she loved her children … so she had to have snapped.”
The trio said they found Reddington to be “entertaining,” “arrogant,” “compassionate” and “funny.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Good Lord. What a mess.
The prosecutor for a triple murder was harsh? Say it ain’t so!
I can’t stand the jury system but also abhor having self-righteous, biased, power hungry judges rule alone.
But if someone on any jury disagrees with others then that is part of the jury system.
Not “do you swear to be swayed by strong personalities on this jury and to bow down to the majority and give up your own opinion based on the evidence and testimony?” “I do.” “You may be seated on the jury.”
Those cows weren’t making the decision like they were told to at all. It was purely emotional, ideological clap trap.
May the Lone Juror be majorly bjessed
Phyllis Schlaffly called it in the 70s: Abortion will lead to the cheapening of human life at every stage.
These women talk about “harsh” and lack of character witnesses as to LC being a bad mother. I would say successivly strangling your 3 kids is pretty harsh, and is perhaps the epitome of being a bad mother. Life is very stressful. Murdering your kids is not an acceptable response to that stress.
I wonder how many of the womyn on the jury were married with children?
Typical massholes. We have some here, too.
Phyllis Schlaffly called it in the 70s: Abortion will lead to the cheapening of human life at every stage.
The Pill got the ball rolling.
You could add Lavrenti Beria.
Jeffrey Dahmer - “I felt peckish!”
RE: sending the husband out of the house to do her planned mission....
To me, that and asking if she could get an attorney shows she was thinking clearly enough despite the “punctual” mystery voice as retired agent Mauro said on Fox. It was silent for all her life, then spoke up to be to blame for the murders, then clammed up again as she asked about lawyers. Never spoke to her again. So convenient.
I am possibly the only one here who supervised a woman in her thirties who sneaked past the probationary period and then told me she had auditory hallucinations. Was on drugs for schizophrenia. Kept suddenly asking to leave sick for the day because the voice (”of God”) told her to. I was told by my boss I couldn’t “interfere with the recovery process” of such a person under HR and federal rules such as with a recovering alcoholic working successfully.
Get this: One day I said: “Why is it the voice you hear always says to leave work and go home and never tells you to work harder and keep at it until you finish your day’s work?”
Why would he say the interview presented reasonable doubt but still wouldn’t say not guilty?
Given the woman’s statement is accurate.
If true, his actions don’t make sense.
Ugh
“”People like her think they’re superior to people with common sense and moral values.””
***
And they use their “superior attitude” to justify the bad things they do ‘for the cause’... because, they had good intentions so it’s always ok, no matter how many it harms. With these idiots, the so-called and supposed “good of the many” outweighs the good of the few. Problem is... with these leftist morons... what they do never ends up being good for anyone. But as long as they can “feeeel” good about themselves, that’s all that really matters.
Because these jurors believe murder is based on "feelings".
Controversial but on the other hand, what if we had someone look into the hormonal, menstrual and pregnancy conditions of all women jurors? (not really suggesting that).
The terms hysterical and hysteria came from outmoded accepted medical beliefs related to hormones and if menopause is causing emotional ups and downs. Also hysterectomy from that word.
Women fought for hundreds of years to be taken seriously and now this trial sets them back as people are getting suspicious about the screeching ones in pink with placards in demonstrations.
Painting....
Where is that from, please? Context, too.
Thanks in advance.
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.