Said Michael P. Desronvil, quoted in "Holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy mistrial, Michael P. Desronvil, speaks out for first time after intense backlash" (NY Post).
Desronvil reportedly believes he’s been “targeted” by the media over the mistrial because he’s a staunch Republican on a jury panel he claimed was mostly leftist “activists,” according to YouTuber Ray Marcel, who posted a video to his channel “Fugitive TV” on Tuesday....
Posts
115 comments:
They always say you should try to see things through the perspective of others, and through that lens people need to understand that every black man has seen an insane black woman. They know what "crazy" looks like. They know a crazy woman does not premeditate getting her husband out of the house for an extended time so she can methodically strangle her children. They know crazy women start hollering at the top of their lungs, grabs knives or any blunt objects at hand, and then start waving it around threatening everyone until they get tired out, sit down, leave or drink a fresca. That's how crazy women act, not the way Clancy acted.
I'm merely trying to see things from a brother's perspective, and he and I both know that 'bitch wasn't trippin'.
I still cannot understand how all the other jurors could not find Clancy responsible for the murders.
This is a perfect storm of moving national power interactions. White women made a power play that was countered by a black Haitian descended American. The white women represent the irresistible force of feminist momentum and the black man represents the immovable object of systemic racism. Here the two butt heads against each other.
When the surf breaks both will still vote majority democrat, but the problem is, which democrat candidate? The majority minority strategy flounders when a split occurs because now if the wrong candidate is at the top of the ticket the splinters just don’t vote.
So the optics here are very bad.
My God.
Sympathy for the parricide because he's an orphan is supposed to be a joke.
What is *wrong* with these people?
"I still cannot understand how all the other jurors could not find Clancy responsible for the murders."
"You're having the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children, aren't you?" - Kellie Farina
The jury didn't know he was a Republican. How would they? What they did know, he has black skin.
If they were treating you disrespectfully, cutting you off and brow-beating you, maybe your race had something to do with it. I would definitely suggest it. A lot of Democrats voted to confirm Clarence Thomas when he embarrassed the shit out of them in public. Call them racist. Either they will shut up and sit in the corner (win) or they have to change their stupid identity politics (win).
Your political party is irrelevant. And, worse, it gives the media a license to do horrible things to you.
Joe Bar : Blinded by ideology may be a good place to start.
"I'm a Republican and this is unfair" is bad tactics, and it's been bad tactics my entire life. They will laugh and pile on even harder.
He's the only juror I've heard so far that sounds intelligent and grounded. The others seem unable to reason clearly, and say things that seem like they completely forget those children were purposefully murdered by the person they wanted to acquit. They describe it like it was an accident or inevitable natural disaster.
Planned or premeditated Parenthood is evidence of Choice or willful disregard of human life for causes other than self-defense.
The math:
On day one, it was 8 not guilty.
In the end, the "activists" wore down 3.
Leaving 1 holdout.
This guy fits my definition of "hero". Someone who risks likely and serious personal harm to do the right thing.
I estimate that the white girls against blacks issue is worth one Iran in the middterm elections
"The jury didn't know he was a Republican. How would they?"
They were allowed to talk to each other during breaks, just not about the case.
…I was on one massachusetts jury and though the stakes were not as high my experience mirrors this guy’s. Massachusetts jurors are insane..
So if he's right and what, 3 at least came into the case saying she was insane before any of the evidence was introduced, that's reason enough for a mistrial. They are supposed to have an open mind and listen to the evidence, not be determined in advance.
Note that leftists are the ones who demanded that this woman be let go because "killing your kids if you are sad is a-ok!"
I mean... isn't what Clancy did about as paradigm an example of Moloch worship as we've seen? "Kill your kids so you can do other things! The God approves!"
The whole jury with this guy as the Republican holdout is a good representation of a blue state, except he actually had a say.
"He might be black, but he's not our kind, dear."
The witches tried to lynch him. Bravo sir!!
ai: "Yes, AI can screen a YouTube video and extract a condensed summary"
Halleluiah!
So now we know the reason for the immediate media blitz on the part of the coven. They had to front-run the story that was eventually going to break, what do they call it now? Pre-bunking?
Yes, the rogue juror had 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 he had 'reasonable doubt !' according to them. The outrage ! But it turns out, he avers he said no such thing. Who to believe, your lyin' ears or the ladies who announced it first?
Mistrial is the right outcome, but apparently for different reasons, at least 3 of them.
It would be really interesting to see how different this whole story would be if the holdout was a woman, especially a black woman. This guy's race was quickly ignored by many so he could be attacked as a man with all that we hate about men in general.
...and let us not forget just how much effort goes into organizing a production like the aftermath of this mistrial, the organization required to support it, the behind-the-scenes discussions with show producers to coordinate just the right kind of media exposure, the timing. A lot of high-priced time and money went into this.
I've seen some vile hatred toward this guy online for saying that you should not be allowed to kill 3 children. What a strange place we've come to in 2026. I'd like my brain put into a mouse now.
What could other jurors talk to him about during break if he was holding out?
"They were allowed to talk to each other during breaks, just not about the case."
Yeah, but I sure wouldn't have told them I'm a Republican if I were him.
If this doesn’t prove the collective white left are the real lynch mob racists… what does?
Dont know why this is a Left v. Right issue, but y'know how the Left is. They have " party lines" on everything. Personally, i could see myself going either way on this. They'll just have to retry her.
Proof republicans are morally superior to evil white leftists.
... he had recently worked in pest control.....
This from NYPost explain his staunch?!/
“‘I'm a Republican and this is unfair’ is bad tactics, and it's been bad tactics my entire life. They will laugh and pile on even harder.”
I’ll disagree.
He wasn’t picking tactics. He was describing what happened to him. He’s been Black all his life and he knows how to spot racism. As an immigrant, he just hasn’t been saturated with all the racism propaganda the rest of us have.
I have been a juror on enough criminal cases to know that's it's actually expected that a lot of the jurors will not vote guilty on the first vote. Most people don't want to make a snap decision because so much is on the line, so even if they feel someone is guilty, they still want to go over all the evidence again just to make sure. Also, everyone knows that the first vote is not the real vote. It's usually just a show of hands to see where people stand before they start the actual deliberations. Even if everyone held up their hands and said that they thought the person was guilty, they would still go over all the evidence and discuss it; just to make sure.
And it's a myth that a lot of criminal cases come to trial even though guilt or innocence is obvious. If guilt or innocence is obvious, there is usually a plea deal or the case is dropped before it reaches the trial phase.
This being said, as soon as the trial is over, I leave the courthouse ASAP and never look back. I don't like judging people, but it has to be done. And once the verdict is read, my job is finished and I want to just go back home and live my life.
"They were allowed to talk to each other during breaks, just not about the case."
If he told them he was a Republican during the trial, we would have learned this about him immediately after the mistrial.
Clancy “lost her children”. Isn’t that enough punishment?!?!
/sarc
So now, the question remains, just how much of a production? And what was the point of origin, when did the notion arise for this symbolic display of solidarity to excuse the murderess?
Did these ladies start to coordinate during jury selection, during the trial testimony, during deliberations, when? Is this a case of fighting for The Cause, a rare, welcome opportunity to shift the Overton Window during this hellish Progressive dry spell? Because by the time they were getting their studio makeup applied for the media spotlight, a day or two post-trial, they had their story straight and all the advance planning had already been done. Was the package ready the day the mistrial was declared? Near as dammit, I'd say.
My guess is, they were hoping for a victory lap, outright dismissal, an then easy few months in the looney, then to be declared sane and so on, with lots of sympathy being mined. And instead, they got stuck with limited hangout damage control, thanks to Mr. Holdout.
Epstein didn't kill himself, Clancey murdered her 3 children, and you can't hate the media enough - but please keep trying.
Not another word from the media about how Jason Arday was “outed” and “bullied” until he took his life.
Euripides wrote of an earlier and nastier version of Lindsay Clancy.
It was Medea. In Corinth, Jason abandoned Medea for the local princess, Glauce, and King Creon ordered Medea into exile. Medea secured her safe refuge in Athens beforehand by making a deal with King Aegeus. Once her escape to Athens was guaranteed, she murdered her own children solely to inflict maximum emotional pain and devastation on Jason for his betrayal.
"Family, friends and neighbors of Desronvil told The Post his family are an upstanding and educated group, and that he had recently worked in pest control.
Desronvil’s newly secured lawyer described him as “a devoted father and man of God” as he asked for prayers for his client’s safety."
the vile left are so out of control with lies, hate, rage and corruption - they seek to HARM, murder and destroy everything good.
I'm beginning to think that if they change venue for a retrial, it should move from Plymouth to Salem.
At what point in the video does Marcel discuss or present what the holdout juror said about the trial? Because he seems to be taking an awful long time to get there.
Can someone please post a link to the judge’s instructions to the jury? Because at the time I read them I remember thinking that only the holdout (identityunknown at that point) followed.them.
They want to HARM/Punish a black man - to set the example that only the "acceptable" leftist democratic pro-murder outcome is allowed.
Will he live until 1/1/2027?
@boatbuilder: you can speed up the videos to at least 2X and then slow them down later on . . . or keep them at 2X
What saddens — no, what WORRIES me is that the judicial system has such a big hole in it that something like this could even happen. This isn't simply jury nullification; it's something deeper, more insidious.
PLEASE help me out here --
• How could something like this be allowed to even happen?
• Does the whole trial-by-jury system have a fundamental flaw in it?
• What, if anything, can be done?
Remember folks. you — or your grandchild — could be next.
"Desronvil reportedly believes he’s been “targeted” by the media over the mistrial because he’s a staunch Republican on a jury panel he claimed was mostly leftist “activists."
100% he's being targeted. How dare he go off the liberal plantation.
"Will he live until 1/1/2027?"
Clancy's husband is supposed to go live with an interview shortly. Depending on what he has to say - and I pray it's not a cuckout - the wicked witches of salome will soon have a new head to seek for retribution.
Michael was a mere juror. Wait'll you watch the witches wrangle with their heroine's husband.
William - the Democrat Party is a Crime Syndicate. That is how bad all of this is.
-defund the police
-anti-ICE watch clubs (paid for by Soros) open the prisons
-Soros D.A.s installed to eradicate our judicial system.
Question to the trial lawyers: is there no longer a question during voir dire about a juror’s impartiality? Or if there is, what about these jurors that came onto the jury already intending to acquit?
It is a pure evil that we have witnesses
The trial judge should be doing more to stop this circus. If jurors have to hire lawyers and go into hiding, the courts have failed to protect the jury system.
I also don’t think this next is too far off topic.
Philadelphia DA was just referred to the DoJ for attempting to get a murderer conviction thrown out without evidence contradicting the conviction.
Austin (Travis County) DA’s office failure to meet standard 90-day court deadline in a murder case allowed arrested suspect to bond out.
These are progressive DAs that are letting murderers get away with murder.
"Question to the trial lawyers: is there no longer a question during voir dire about a juror’s impartiality?"
Not a trial lawyer, but that question is always asked (in my experience), and potential jurors can answer it honestly or dishonestly. Some will say they can't just so they'll be dismissed, others will say than can be even if they've already made up their mind. It's up to the attorneys to try read their minds.
"If jurors have to hire lawyers and go into hiding, the courts have failed to protect the jury system."
Used to be you had to fear the mafia. Now you have to fear liberal white women. Incredible.
I’ll disagree.
He wasn’t picking tactics. He was describing what happened to him.
He's describing his perception of what happened to him. He felt the antagonism in the jury room (obviously). But none of the jurors in their TV interviews said, "we had a crazy Trump voters in there and he refused to convict." I feel like they would have, if that is what was going on. Certainly overt politics in the jury room would be grounds for a mistrial.
What I saw, in those interview clips, were jurors who were really mad about the deliberations, and how this man refused to go along with them. I saw wacky, out of control feminism.
I did not see TDS in these interviews. Trump's name didn't even come up!
We had an additional clue in the Gayle King interview. This one juror was tiptoeing around the fact that the holdout juror was black. Why tiptoeing? Because the optics of 11 white people trying to browbeat one black juror into doing what he was told to do looks horrible. I think she realized that.
Now, the juror is under a lot of stress. He's feeling attacked. And he's got a lot of fans on the right. And so he's decided to wrap himself up in it. He's hired Ed Paltzik (Trump's former attorney) to be his attorney.
So to me, this is bad tactics. Escalating it, making it about Trump. It's not about Trump, for fuck's sake. (Unless it was, I guess, but I seriously doubt it).
It may be he's trying to cash in.
I don't blame him. He's being seriously attacked. That can wreck your life in a variety of ways.
Lindsay Clancy has raised $2.2 million, that's how insane that shit is.
From The Guardian
Numerous outlets, including NBC10 and the Boston Globe, report that he has a past domestic violence charge from 2021 and an active civil restraining order for allegedly assaulting his nephew, and was facing eviction proceedings while deliberating the Clancy case.
I think these people are quite capable of putting Desronvil in jail, while they let Lindsay Clancy go. They hate him. And now they are looking for a crime, so they can punish him.
'Lindsay Clancy has raised $2.2 million, that's how insane that shit is"
...there's a defendable dissertation somewhere in the cultural and economic dynamics of gofundme...
“I think these people are quite capable of putting Desronvil in jail, while they let Lindsay Clancy go. They hate him. And now they are looking for a crime, so they can punish him.”
But Blacks and especially Black men are looking at this too. As are white liberals who aren’t idiots.
"Does the whole trial-by-jury system have a fundamental flaw in it?"
Mark Twain has thoughts...
From "Roughing It":
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty and equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated-- every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
RideSpaceMountain made a good point I hadn't thought of regarding the juror's experience which informed his viewpoint. He knew how a really crazy woman acts. The way I evaluated that same info about the juror's domestic violence record was that he had experienced rage and being out of control himself and yet he still knew what he was doing. IOW Clancy still knew what she was doing.
It's funny how the same bit of information can work to validate the man's opinion and at the same time be used invalidate him for other people. At the time I initially heard that about him it really didn't occur to me that his past invalidated his judgement and that he must be a misogynist.
Liberal culture and the law in Democratic jurisdictions have ruled that planned parenthood is her Choice.
"As are white liberals who aren’t idiots."
As the farmer said about the giraffe, "I see it, but I still say there ain't no such animal!"
Her Choice is a double-edged scalpel.
Eventually, they're going to pull this shit on the wrong person. A person who won't put up with it. A person who won't go into hiding.
A person who's going to fight back at whatever cost.
Everyone seems so upset about this. surprised, shocked etc. It isn't shocking at all, it is the logical conclusion of feminist theology- the right to kill children, the right to be a victim, the right to never suffer consequences .
This mass murder is just another ribbon for feminists to wear- along with support for muslims, and illegals.
that worthless POS is an icon to feminists, and will be rich and probably run for office.
Shame the husband didn't take a gun and deliver actual justice.
“Shame the husband didn't take a gun and deliver actual justice.”
The husband supports his wife. Just as women will often defend abusive husbands, some kind of emotional blackmail may be at work here too. It’s also easier on the psyche to believe you married a woman who went temporarily out of control than to believe you married a murderer.
Whatever the reason, it makes a retrial harder and a plea bargain easier.
"Shame the husband didn't take a gun and deliver actual justice."
All I know is Padme would never see the inside of a courtroom.
****
It would be really interesting to see how different this whole story would be if the holdout was a woman, especially a black woman.
****
You jest. Almost no woman would ever have the fortitude to hold out against the mean-girl coven for an 11-1 verdict.
A fair number of men wouldn't either, especially Massachusetts lefties, but the chances are much better.
The husband has been supportive of Lindsey Clancy. I suppose it could stem from guilt about leaving her with the children. The fact that they are suing the medical providers might have something to do with it as well. I have no idea how I would deal with such a thing as a husband and father. I'm not sure that I would be capable of reasoning about it.
“guilt about leaving her with the children”
He either worked from home or travelled for a couple of days a few times a year. Plus they had a nanny.
"Yes, the rogue juror had 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 he had 'reasonable doubt !' according to them. The outrage ! But it turns out, he avers he said no such thing."
I said that when the "note" was first announced. The crazy foreperson as a sole source. Feh.
This guy was slandered pretty bad. Boston media claimed that he was the subject of a $ 12,000 eviction. But, at least according to social media, the eviction case was the result of a divorce. The wife told him to hit the bricks. He did. Then she told him to pay the rent. He didn't.
My father used to serve as an expert witness in Pennsylvania on psychiatric trials, after he retired from his career as a state mental hospital administrator. Diagnosing mental conditions was his forte and a sought after skill. He was great at labels for psychiatric conditions.
The key in PA is that it was up to the defendant to prove their insanity. The opposite is the case in Massachusetts. In PA her lawyer would have had to prove beyond doubt she was mentally incapable of knowing what she was doing was wrong. I doubt she would have succeeded. The evidence of her deliberately controlling her husband's absence from the home while she committed the crimes would have probably been effective against her claim.
In this case Chancey's lawyer claimed the insanity defense and poor treatment, but he did not have to prove that claim.
The prosecutor, the State, had to prove she was not insane in order to find her guilty of murder. They couldn't possibly prove that. The doubt was on her side. If I had to serve on the jury and decide the verdict based on the law, I would not have been able to do accept that the State had proved she was not insane and find her guilty.
What is the fucking point!? The trial is over and none of these people will be jurors on the next trial. They have no power or official standing.
The only rational goal of focusing on this is to taint the jury pool.
I guess Boston NBC is going to be on the hook for a very large settlement.
The local NBC affiliate really went after this hero. They committed multiple crimes that have 20 year sentences attached to him that were meant to keep the mob from harassing jurors.
If we had a real DOJ many reporters and editors at NBC would be going to jail over this.
“The only rational goal of focusing on this is to taint the jury pool.”
And every other jury pool as well.
> As are white liberals who aren’t idiots.
All three of them??
Further to add to my comment above, IMO there is no point to having another trial because the way Massachusetts structures its law the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove Chancey was sane at the time of the murders and of sound mind.
She had a proven history of mental illness. The jury had to decide their verdict based on the doubt or proven certainty of her sanity, regardless of the fact she murdered her children.
I don't believe there is any way for the State to prove her sanity given her medical history. I can understand her lawyer's argument against putting her through another trial to establish the doubt of her sanity or give the State another chance to prove something impossible to prove.
Lucien said, "What is the fucking point!?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. The 3 feminist jurors that blabbed first should know. Also the defense attorney's wife. Let's ask them.
Jimmy said, "Shame the husband didn't take a gun and deliver actual justice."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fascinating. Would his immediate murder of his wife also been an emotional disturbance? Not guilty by insanity? Shame he was uninformed. He could be the one placing the burden on the prosecution to prove his sanity in killing his childrens' murderer, but we all know he wouldn't be getting the luxury of a mistrial, now don't we.
MA kicks it up a notch after embracing abortion at the instant before birth not murder.
One thing I'm not clear on and people seem to say different things but isn't if she was found not guilty she walks. No institutionalization. Right?
“putting her through another trial”
She certainly didn’t mind the pain and anguish of strangling her kids.
Lucien said...
What is the fucking point!? The trial is over and none of these people will be jurors on the next trial. They have no power or official standing.
The only rational goal of focusing on this is to taint the jury pool.
The rational goal of focusing on this is to highlight the evil and disgusting nature of the modern feminist movement and the modern democrat party.
This is the abortion issue taken to its logical conclusion. State euthanasia is trending the same direction. The leading cause of death in several demographics in Canada is assisted suicide now.
At least 30% of a generation of women have been turned into demons.
There is no running from this.
Lucien is right. The trial is over. The retrial should be done with unbiased jurors (Ha!). This is all jury tampering and intimidation.
"If I had to serve on the jury and decide the verdict based on the law, I would not have been able to do accept that the State had proved she was not insane and find her guilty."
If I understand correctly, the evidence was that the only time that she claimed to have "heard voices" was when she killed those children. Eight months after the baby was born. Not before, and not after. The expert testimony was that this is entirely inconsistent with postpartum psychosis or even psychosis in general. That would do it for me. Not only not psychotic, but lying about being psychotic.
PrimoStL said...
Jimmy said, "Shame the husband didn't take a gun and deliver actual justice."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fascinating. Would his immediate murder of his wife also been an emotional disturbance? Not guilty by insanity? Shame he was uninformed. He could be the one placing the burden on the prosecution to prove his sanity in killing his childrens' murderer, but we all know he wouldn't be getting the luxury of a mistrial, now don't we.
I would use self defense or defense of another as my defense.
His 8 month old was still alive when he found him and it would be reasonable to assume the demon witch would try to finish the baby off given the chance.
“At least 30% of a generation of women have been turned into demon”
Hate to bring in facts but murder rate for men is much higher. Filicide is about equal.
I like the 30% - makes it look like you know what you’re talking about.
Eva Marie said...
“At least 30% of a generation of women have been turned into demon”
Hate to bring in facts but murder rate for men is much higher. Filicide is about equal.
I like the 30% - makes it look like you know what you’re talking about.
At least 30% of women support Clancey.
99.9999999% of men want men who kill their children executed.
So what stupid point were you trying to make?
YouGov (Sept. 4-8, 23,554 U.S. adults, ±0.8 pts): 46% said guilty of murder was the more appropriate verdict, 21% said not guilty by reason of insanity, 33% unsure. It split along predictable lines — 51% of men vs. 41% of women said guilty; 61% of Republicans vs. 34% of Democrats.
You pull these crazy statistics out of your ass snd then you expect people to take you seriously. I hope you code better than you reason.
I'm just waiting to hear her defense attorney's arguments against the retrial and why the case should be dismissed.
In casual conversation over the past few weeks the dividing line isn't race or gender: the breakdown is 3 parts:
1. "I've just seen the headlines." 50% guilty.
2. Have read even a single print story (maybe "text story" is better nomenclature, since most read online now). 100% guilty.
3. Know about the case from short-form video or YouTube "true crime" videos. 10% guilty.
The people in category 1 can easily be converted to category 2. The people in category 3 are completely immune to persuasion and feel VERY strongly about their opinions, which they are more than happy to tell you about. About of third of them are GROSSLY misinformed, blaming the husband for the killings or asserting that the killer had no medical care at all or had never been treated for mental illness or that she had no childcare help or that "a doctor" had "put her on a combination of medicines that is known to make women psychotic."
The gender- and ideology dynamics are real, but they're overshadowing two other points:
First, our current media is just grotesquely terrible with misleading, incomplete, or fully dishonest headlines, and headlines have never been more important. When you were reading a physical newspaper, you had a real incentive to go beyond the headline and read the actual story because you'd purchased it. But it's now obvious that scrolling headlines are the only that many people will read, and headline writers have been somewhat freed from the old constraints of column width, etc., but headline writing is worse than its been in my 30+ years of paying attention to it. Headlines were one of the two things I was clearly the best at in Journalism school (the other was Obituaries) so I do pay attention to effect and quality, and they're all mostly dishonest and suck even for entertainment value. .
Second, short-form video is a serious problem that I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix: because the reinforcement schedule feels random, it addicts people the way slot-machines addict people, and, I am inferring, that addiction process makes bad information "sticky" so people remember the bad information particularly well.
I feel reasonably confident that subsequent generations will have developed resistance to short-form video the same way earlier generations eventually developed resistance to radio, then film, then television, then web pages, then social media. But right now GenZ and some millennials are just as hopelessly brainwashed by video they see on a small screen as Boomers were by whatever pictures they saw on the glowing box in the living room.
So the Grand Jury system is utterly broken, a substantial fraction of Prosecutors are dishonest ideologues, a substantial number of Judges are dishonest ideologues, and now even the notional integrity of the petit jury system is going to be destroyed by media doxxing and this new mutation of "jury activism" (massively more dangerous than "jury nullification" could ever ).
What the hell are we going to do about this, because it really does matter if guilty people are getting away with crimes that victimized innocent people.
The way I see it people across the board want 2 opposite things at the same time
1. We want victim status.
That’s why JK Rowling draws such heat. She isn’t only rejecting an idea. She’s refusing to treat someone else’s claim of harm as automatic moral credit. To them no is an attack.
2. We are desperate for our own struggle story.
You can even hear both yearnings in Achilles’ line about 30% of a generation being turned into demons: the grievance and the epic framing at once.
Lindsay Clancy’s story has been shaped to contain both. Her psychotic episode portrays her as a victim.
The trial, the hospitals, the meds, the “good mother undone” - that’s her struggle story.
Pair them and you don’t have to feel bad forgetting about Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
Professor, outstanding comment at 11:22. I think you're right on the money. That did not occur to me.
Female Tik Tok Psychosis: The Lindsay Clancy Cult.
Prof. M. Drout said, "What the hell are we going to do about this"
---------------------------------------------------------------
It ends in gunfire. Precisely the thing it was designed to prevent, ironically. The thin veneer of civilization is really just a complex exercise in passive aggressiveness, because long ago someone's ancestors experienced actual aggression and said "this sucks". Barbarism is the base layer, mankind's bios files, and we can easily and shockingly quickly go back anytime we'd like.
BTW struggle stories are better if they can be bought on the cheap. A lot of the Trump-as-tyrant talk is just that: danger, resistance, the whole costume, and then you go home.
What the hell are we going to do about this?
I think specifically in the Lindsay Clancy case, you automatically remove anybody from the jury pool who has watched short-form video about the case.
A more extreme version would be to automatically remove anybody from the jury pool who has heard the name "Lindsay Clancy."
I grant you Mark Twain's point (Mason at 3:15), but I don't think this is going to leave you with a jury pool of dummies. It's going to leave you with a jury pool of "low-information voters." These are people who don't spend a lot of time on-line, don't subscribe to newspapers, and don't watch TV news. They're not dumb, they're ignorant of a lot of stuff. That's the jury pool you want, giving you 12 jurors who have no pre-existing opinions about the case.
It feels like everybody has heard the name Lindsay Clancy now. But I'll bet there's a sizable number of people who have not. It might take more time, but it's worth it to remove prejudiced jurors from the pool. And people who watch short-form video about Lindsay Clancy are very prejudiced indeed.
Clancy's case is unusual in that she's admitted to killing her children. It's not an issue in the case! And yet there's a sizable number of people who think she did not kill her children. There's this huge disconnect between reality and what people are seeing in our media.
I would also remove anybody from the jury pool who is wearing a pink T-shirt.
A man in Austin beat a woman to death, left her body under a tarp in his yard for two days, then buried her in a backyard burn pit. He was arrested. Bail was set at $500,000. He had no money for bail. And so he sat in jail, awaiting his trial.
Time passed.
Prosecutors missed the deadline for indicting him. The murder charges had to be dropped.
That's what happens when you have a George Soros DA.
"staunch Republican"
I don't think I've ever seen the word staunch except followed by the word Republican. And I've been noticing that since I was a kid and they were talking about someone who voted for Nixon.
Lazy, trite prose and braindead libtard arrogance = staunch Democrat Party members, every time.
I don't think I've ever seen the word staunch except followed by the word Republican."
On the Althouse blog, when somebody says, "I'm a staunch Republican..."
I know the blah blah blah that follows is going to be anti-Trump.
"I've been a Republican all my life and I cannot believe..."
Rosalyn C. said...
"Further to add to my comment above, IMO there is no point to having another trial because the way Massachusetts structures its law the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove Chancey was sane at the time of the murders and of sound mind."
Excellent points. The lone juror now appears as a protest vote against Massachusetts insanity. I escaped MA 50 years ago. The law there does not surprise me.
The lone juror considered the facts. Apparently none of the other jurors were interested in them. Clancy is/was toxic, not only to her family but also to society in general. Lock her up.
Planned or premeditated Parenthood is evidence of her Choice.
#HateLovesAbortion QED
Well he sure as hell is not wrong that he is being targeted by democrats.
If there’s a new trial, the jury has to be sequestered. You know those bitches were on their phones as soon as they were in thei Subarus.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.