Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/14/2026 8:07:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
Paula Devlin, one of the outspoken Lindsay Clancy jurors, said the quiet part out loud this weekend during an interview with CBS.
Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children to death in January 2023.
Clancy admitted that she killed all three of her own children, but the defense argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity.
The jury considered five verdicts:
– Guilty of First-Degree Murder – Guilty of Second-Degree Murder – Guilty of Manslaughter – Not Guilty – Not Guilty due to Lack of Criminal Responsibility
Eleven jurors were ready to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, but one lone male juror held the line and refused to buckle under pressure.
The judge last Friday declared a mistrial after a dramatic showdown in court with Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.
Last week, a few jurors came forward and spoke with the media about their decision to support Lindsay Clancy.
This weekend, juror Paula Devlin continued her media tour and admitted the mostly female jury wanted to leave their mark.
“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women…” Paula Devlin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
So if it was the husband that strangled those children would they have rendered the same verdict?
Undoubtedly not..........
Nope - it’s about sending a message
What if Clancey had killed THEIR children? I wonder how that would turn out?
“The Clancy jury was not sequestered, and this is just further proof that they were likely thumbing their noses at the orders to ignore outside influences and watching TikTok videos of other women supporting child killer Lindsay Clancy”.
Yup. I thought that when I read one of the jurors or more were wearing pink.
They were showing the Clancy supporters their solidarity. They should not have even been aware of the pink wearing symbolism if they were ignoring outside influences.
It is all about the tribe.
Can the judge shut this woman? She is an embarrassment.
Then one man saw the truth. The trial wasn't about healthcare, psychiatric care, medications, etc.... It was about strangling three children to death with planned acts.
The media wants to focus on the idea that the holdout was wrong and should be blamed for the mistrial. I suggest another interpretation: the 11 jurors should be criticized for failing to persuade the 12th juror. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to consider that.
I have not done many jury trials. I have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence and logical reasoning skills of the average person plucked off the voting or property tax rolls.
I’ve never been arrested, certainly never prosecuted. But I tend to think if I were, I would lean toward a bench trial rather than a jury.
I am surprised by how angry I am every time I see one of these jurors or the defense attorney doing a media tour for this case. Especially when they talk about the holdout juror. It is outrageous that they are turning this into their own personal publicity tour. It violates all rules of jury confidentiality and decorum and will undermine the jury system going forward. Any sane person is going to think twice about being on a jury and saying anything in the future if they know an unpopular opinion is going to be blabbed by the other jurors on the national news to a media who act like a pack of bloodthirsty wolves out to kill the malcontent and praise the jurors who came to the “right” conclusion. I keep saying “where is the judge to stop this disaster” but I guess he isn’t going to do it. I have to just tune out.
‘“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women…” Paula Devlin said.’
The post trial juror comments indicate the judge’s ruling of a mistrial was spot on.
I’m not saying it wasn’t.
Barren, decadent women are bizarre.
These women seriously wanted to legalize infanticide?!? Of course, this is Massachusetts, so be on the lookout for legislation getting introduced permitting post-birth abortion up to 6 years or so.
I don’t think the judge has the courage to step in front of that train. Even the prosecutor didn’t and won’t.
I watched essentially the entire trial because my wife had it on all the time.
Massachusetts law is different than most other states in that the burden of proof rests on the state to prove “not insanity” rather than the defense to prove “insanity”.
The prosecutor was incompetent, and the state’s expert witnesses were inept and arrogant. They didn’t even come close to removing reasonable doubt.
Both of us started out thinking she would get convicted rather easily. By the end, neither of us was surprised by the actual (non) verdict.
It is also about leaving their mark.
So, they can be proud of their crowning achievement in life.
It is HUBRIS.
I have seen the same thing on a local political scale.
The liberals of my small town pushed through a new library that cost the tax payers multiple millions. We will be paying for it for twenty years on a bond. The main proponents were all about leaving “their mark”. Again, HUBRIS. Meanwhile, there are never more than three cars at the library. Including the librarian.
Can a prosecutor in Massachusetts ask for a ‘directed verdict’?
A directed verdict is a ruling by a trial judge that instructs a jury to return a specific verdict because one party has failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claim or defense. This occurs when the judge determines that no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion based on the evidence presented.
They were using the trial and subsequent verdict to make a POLITICAL STATEMENT................
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.