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 09/20/2026 5:32:13 PM PDT by DoodleBob
…Wendy Murphy — “an impact litigator whose work in state and federal courts around the country has changed the law to improve protections for women’s and children’s constitutional rights” — further claims since the jury apparently voted 11-1 for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict, it’s indicative of public opinion.
…
Murphy laments how “social media influencers” have created “carefully selected us vs. them narratives,” and offers the hypothesis that insurance company PR firms also have a stake in churning up controversy, especially the company representing the mental health professionals being sued by Clancy’s family.
Invoking the novel “1984,” Murphy says PR firms “pay influencers and bot farms to spread [controversy]. Bot farms are especially dangerous because they manufacture completely fake people on platforms like X, TikTok and Facebook to make it look like hundreds of thousands of people feel a certain way even though the real number is exponentially smaller….a jury could easily award the Clancy family 500 million or more,” hence the incentive for negative PR towards Lindsay.
Murphy also mentions the pornography and sex trafficking industries (even though she admits they actually have nothing to do with this particular case), claiming they too benefit from the negative PR because they sell narratives that “women are just as violent as men.”
…
A Gallup/USA Today/CNN poll showed 56 percent disagreed with that jury’s verdict, while an LA Times poll had the figure at 50 percent (with 60 percent saying they doubted “whether justice had been served”).
In the Clancy case, a YouGov poll showed 46 percent believed the verdict should have been (guilty of) murder, while only 21 percent said not guilty by reason of insanity. (Thirty-three percent were “not sure.”)
A Rasmussen poll had similar numbers: 49 percent said guilty, 19 percent not guilty, and 32 unsure.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecollegefix.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. |
Women having political power has been a disaster for American society. The 19th Amendment should be repealed, women forbidden from practicing law or serving on juries, and banned from political office of any kind.
L
Jurors will have to swear or affirm:
“Do you agree you will sway to the decision of the more vocal and assertive jurors, giving up on your own assessment of the evidence and testimony so as not to upset and delay the other jurors?”
“I do.”
“You may be seated on the jury.”
NONE OF THIS IS HELPING JURY TRIAL, IMO.
O’Reilly used to have her on all the time before he lost his show on Fox.
Wendy Murphy — “an impact litigator whose work in state and federal courts around the country has changed the law to improve protections for women’s and children’s constitutional rights”
Good job improving the rights of children. Another feminist monster...
Guilty
By reason of RBF
bump
You are right but no chance any of it will happen of course. There some grounded and right minded women to be sure but it is a fact that every awful piece of legislation and every scumbag who got elected would not have happened without women votes.
This is yet another argument to kick women out of the legal profession. This is not about “rights.” This is about letting women get away with child murder because of “raging hormones.”
This lawyer is a danger to American society.
CRAZY Wendy Murphy!
She was discredited years ago.
“Wendy”. I stopped right there.
Gee, I sure hope I get a panel full of progressive women lunatics If I’m ever on trial for a capital offense.
In 2013, Murphy was sanctioned for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with U.S. district judge Joseph R. Goodwin writing:
https://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/sites/wvsd/files/opinions/2_13-cv-13110_Goodwin_12-5-13.pdf
Every aspect of this case has been riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and distortions by Ms. Murphy. The action was filed against the “West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,” although the correct name of the court is the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The Complaint refers to this court as the “United States District Court for the District of West Virginia,” apparently failing to realize that the state of West Virginia has two federal districts. Ms. Murphy, who is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts, did not file a Statement of Visiting Attorney or pay the Visiting Attorney fee to appear pro hac vice, as required by Local Rule 83.6. The entire premise of the Complaint in this case was based upon a blatant distortion of the SCAWV’s opinion in State ex rel. J.W. v. Knight, 223 W.Va. 785, 679 S.E.2d 617 (2009). And a case against the SCAWV is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Hey, I’m a woman and so are (probably half the Freepers
So what’s your point?
L
Collectivists hate it when individuals think for themselves.
What is the logic of disagreeing with a non-verdict?
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.
