How could so many of the Mass. jurors be Bat-S crazy?
It was a great strategic move for his lawyer to have him come forward and take the sensationalism of outing the man away from the shthead media.
He’ll never feel safe in that crap hole and should take Governor DeSantis up on his invitation to relocate to Florida.
Salem.
“How could so many of the Mass. jurors be Bat-S crazy?”
Leftism. It is not meant to be functional. It is meant to destroy. The fools in MA first tolerated then adopted it. They are insane and angry.
Madness lashes out at the innocent.
Their minds are broken by their failed delusions “not being so” -as Ronald Reagan observed.
Sir, don’t fool yourself into thinking this “Bat-S crazy” insanity is localized only to Massachusetts.
A lot of people think that drawing a dotted line on a map will identify the cause of this kind of Leftist stupidity. It won’t, and it softens and minimizes the problem.
I guarantee that if this took place in any number of other states, it might not have been a mistrial by 11-1, it might have been a mistrial by 7-5, but this perverted and twisted Feminist mindset exists in every single state in this Union.
I’m guessing you haven’t been to Massachusetts. Even a short visit will be enough to explain.
And how did a conservative religious man manage to be part of the jury?
Because he’s black, of course, and the lawyer “assumed”…
Have you ever been on a criminal jury? I have, and I understand what happened here perfectly.
I'm quite sure the first vote (if they did that, it's not a requirement) wasn't 11-1.
There was a coalition of jurors who should have been excluded during voire dire, but weren't because the prosecutor was too dim to grasp that there was a feminist argument for "not guilty".
That group, maybe 3 or 4, wore down most of the others during deliberations, women who were susceptible to feminist praxis and two weak men. The more they deliberated, the more the living paralyzed "Mom" who the jury met in the courtroom every day (but who wisely did not testify) came to the front of mind, and the more the murdered children receded.
The genius of twelve was never more clearly shown than in this event.
In this case, the one man who wasn't absorbed into the Boston-area feminist hive mind "he just didn't GET IT", saw his service to the dead children as foremost, and proved (again) the wisdom of the jury system at its best.
My one criminal case was a re-trial of a convicted armed robber who was granted a retrial on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel (which of course we were not allowed to know when we deliberated). That outcome, retrial for ineffective assistance, is very, very rare as we later found out. Our first vote was 10-2 "not guilty", and it took quite a while for us to reach a verdict (that's a whole other story).
Lindsay Clancy's defense was brilliant, obviously not having her testify was key, the law that the jury was instructed on is unusual (MA is the only state where the State has to DISPROVE insanity), and the prosecutor didn't do a very good job - as in most single-party states, jobs like that are given to hacks.
Adding on to what I just posted: I also think she may have been overcharged, and the State took on a burden (First Degree Murder) that was the hardest to prove under the circumstances in this case as I understand them.
Because MA does not have capital punishment, Murder One is an unusual charge there - even the most depraved murders there are usually charged in the Second Degree. I don't know the thought process behind the State's case, but if they re-try I think they will not use Murder One as the premise of their case.
How could so many of the Mass. jurors be Bat-S crazy?
Because its Massachusetts.
“How could so many of the Mass. jurors be Bat-S crazy?”
Ask what the country believed prior to the 19th amendment. Same answer to the question you just asked.