Here's the NYT article from 1991, "Man Acquitted of Killing and Boiling Roommate."Sunny Hostin brags about being a holdout juror that prevented The Butcher of Thompson Square Park from going to prison.
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 22, 2026
She admits "once he killed her, he chopped up her body parts, yes, boiled her body parts ... and fed her body parts to the unhoused." pic.twitter.com/sLbElgLuGt
Several jurors questioned afterward said one holdout juror was principally responsible for preventing them from returning a guilty verdict. "We don't think he intended to kill her," said a juror, Asuncion Cummings. "But once he did, he dismembered her body in an effort to commit the perfect crime."Asuncion Cummings is the first name and maiden name of Sunny Hostin.
[The defendant] testified that he did not kill Ms. Beerle, a 26-year old Swiss woman who studied dance at the Martha Graham School while working as a topless dancer. But he did admit that he dismembered her, bleached and boiled the bones "to disinfect them," and hid them. After rumors that a body had been boiled reached local detectives, he was questioned, and led them to the Port Authority Bus Terminal baggage room, where he had left her skull. One witness testified that shortly after the killing, Mr. Rakowitz had served homeless men in Tompkins Square Park soup containing a human finger. A native of Texas, Mr. Rakowitz came to New York in 1985 and walked around the East Village carrying a live chicken and selling marijuana, calling himself the "God of Marijuana."
పోస్ట్లు
67 కామెంట్లు:
…is that some royal ‘we’ she’s got going there? I know what the rest of us think…
As her colleague on The Spew might say, it wasn't murdery murder.
She is one of the nastiest lefties on TV. She makes Jim Acosta look like a reasonable person. Their is intense hatred in her eyes.
She's OK with boiling up the body parts and promoting some unrecognized human cannibalism by feeding the bits to unfortunate victims, but how dare you call them 'homeless'.
The sort of lefty idiot that gives all the rest of the lefties a bad name. She probably thought that his boiling a body that he "found" was just environmental clean up. Of course she first had to believe that he simply found a body.
But she's just a run of the mill grade idiot--it qualifies her for a spot on the View.
"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd..."
"I'm not really that hungry but since you are already dead...."
In his defense, he fed the boiled body parts to the unhoused.
The best part is feeding them to the unhoused. 🤣
The gruesome details of cannibalism in the same sentence as the phony wokiness of calling them "unhoused" is instead of "homeless" is just too perfect.
ai answers : "Awarding a large financial claim in a civil case and finding an obviously guilty person "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) in a criminal case share a striking paradox : both outcomes completely separate factual, physical guilt from legal accountability and the standard definition of punishment.
While the two legal mechanisms operate in entirely different courtrooms, they are philosophically and structurally similar in several key ways :
1. The Separation of Fact from Blame
2. A Shift in the Burden of Proof
3. "Not Guilty" and "Winning" Do Not Mean Freedom
Summary
Ultimately, both situations occur when the legal system prioritizes a specific systemic outcome over a straightforward "guilty/not guilty" binary. In the criminal case, the system prioritizes psychiatric treatment and public safety over punishment. In the civil case, it prioritizes victim compensation and risk redistribution over establishing criminal intent."
Planned Cuisinehood... very PC.
Jeffrey Dahmer would like a word, posthumously.
The Spew. That show is part of the purposeful social moral decay and dumbing down of a nation.
As with all of these heinous crimes- the victim is forgotten.
ABC is BS NOW
"We don't think he intended to kill her," said a juror, Asuncion Cummings.
Isn't that a distinction with the Clancey case? Is anyone claiming Clancy did not "intend" to kill each of her three children, even if you believe she not have the requisite level of legal intent to be convicted?
Many people choke on the the concept of acquittal teamed with insanity. I can't figure out Sunny's championing of a guy who ate someone (or served her to others) after probably killing her. Guilty and insane is probably a more appropriate verdict option.
I wouldn't want to have to depend on Sunny Hostin to decide on the color of cotton candy at the State Fair, let alone on a jury deciding if a guy boiling the bones and saving the skull of someone he served up in a soup is guilty of murder.
At least we have her talking to the nation every day, every week, telling those mush minds what to think. And how to vote.
GodDAMN but that is one evil bitch.
Oscar Wilde once referred to hypocrisy as "that most English of vices."
"Vices" is far too tame for the incredible dissonances from these English-screeching nitwits.
So what happened to the "Butcher"? Did he end up in a insane asylum, let out back on the street?
I asked this before and I guess I'll ask again, it's one thing if some criminally insane person goes back to a place when he's monitored and watched 24/7 like Hickley (at least for some time) it's another if the person is considered "momentarily" insane and is allowed right back on the streets. In the Clancey case what is the alternative outcome here?
Her son was out for a run last July and decided to run along a railroad right-of-way, and was arrested by the cops for trespassing. Sunny went barging down to the scene and tried throwing her credentials around, on video, to a rather predictable effect. Rather humiliating videos are out there.
'...“We’re dimming it down to a trespass violation because you were in the right-of-way, you weren’t in the gauge or anything, which is the middle area where the tracks were on,” another officer noted. “And you’ve been very cooperative with us and you have a good background, everything like that. We know you’re not a criminal or anything like that 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒔 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆.”...'
Consider that when you start seeing the Flock cameras popping up all around you....
I guess Daniel Rakowitz is still in a facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rakowitz at least as of 2025. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/wards-island-shrinks-edge-criminally-182620799.html
This seems deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that there was both a lone holdout and that the rest of the jury didn't believe that he intended to kill her. They omit (at least in the quoted portion) that the person "not believing" was, in fact, the lone holdout.
All of this so that all the leftwing white females can jump on board the proud approval of a mother who methodically strangled her young children.
Good going BS ABC.
That guy sounds like he was, in fact, psychotic; he presumably was also charged with various crimes relating to dismembering the body and covering up the crime.
In Clancy's case the defense claims that she was suffering from psychosis are highly questionable (8 months after birth, the claimed voices occurring only at the time of the killings, etc.) There is absolutely no reason to think that the State of Massachusetts has any ability or legal right to hold Clancy in a psychiatric institution if she is acquitted and a psychiatrist finds her to currently be sane.
Vile
We’re beginning to see what the world would look like if women were in charge. Long live the patriarchy!
I wonder how she would feel if Payton Gendron is found innocent?
Orwell was right about women...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrQRM5X6eNE
Aren't holdout jurors great? Profiles in courage. Heroes! Anyone who disagrees should be executed. Signed, Achilles.
I'm surprised that she saved a white man.
A minority in defense of cruel and unusual. In Clancy's case, a majority in defense of cruel and unusual. Planned personhood and planned parenthood, respectively. Priorities.
My first thought, in defense of Sonny Hostin, is a reminder of what I think is wrong about Massachusetts law regarding the insanity defense. If the burden is on the prosecution, then it opens up an argument that virtually anyone is insane, compared to what most of think of sanity, when they kill another person; especially when they kill and cannibalize another person. I think many would casually consider that insane, which opens up a reasonable doubt to culpability due to insanity.
Now, if you didn't read this far; you might think I'm fully defending Sonny or the outcome of the jury in her case. I'm not. First, while I can understand her finding reasonable doubt; I don't buy 12 people having that doubt any more than I did in the Clancy trial. Second, New York law puts the burden on the defense to prove insanity by preponderance of evidence. I don't think Clancy's defense made that hurdle, and I'm surprised that Rakowitz defense could prove it, except they had the support of Sonny Hostin in the juror deliberations.
Here is what I think is the current jury instructions for New York regarding an insanity defense.
What happens whern the jurors are insane
The funny part is that Sunny thinks this is a huge defense of finding people not guilty due to insanity rather than a huge defense of one juror holding out against pressure from the other 11.
It's different this time because......
The Althouse Club was right to cheer on the Clancy holdout juror because...... they felt like it, it agreed with their biases. The Althouse Club is right that this holdout juror was all wrong, because..... they don't like her, she disagrees with their biases.
Whatevs. The crowd moves with its personality.
"What happens whern the jurors are insane"
In Massachusetts, it is the responsibility of the justice system to prove that the jurors are not insane. An asylum run by nuts as it were.
It's different this time because...the cases involved different people, different laws, different facts and different issues. Not to mention 35 years of changing societal mores. And nobody strangled three babies in the Butcher case.
But sure. Nobody who believes Clancy is guilty has thought very hard about the case, and are just blinded by their biases. Only you are free of bias.
Is a holdout juror always right, always wrong, or does it depend on the situation?
Kai Akker said...
Aren't holdout jurors great? Profiles in courage. Heroes! Anyone who disagrees should be executed. Signed, Achilles.
Ah. It took me a bit to find the context for your stupid post.
So you are a stupid Clancey supporter who wants as many children in the country murdered as possible.
What are we supposed to do with people who want to make murdering children OK?
Caroline said...
We’re beginning to see what the world would look like if women were in charge. Long live the patriarchy!
And if we abandon Objective Christian Morality.
Planned Pro-Choice... hood
Our jury system was designed to operate in a Christian nation with Christian people where a critical mass of the population is convicted and able to accept an Objective Moral code based on the 10 commandments and the principle that we have a common moral code.
You can't have a system based on a jury of your peers if a significant portion of the population are retarded amoral demons.
An ethical or relative morality that garners wicked solutions, of course. Let us bray. In Stork We Trust. A religious model that, among other conceptions, engenders Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies).
Mao was insane. Hitler was insane. Clancy is in the company of lunatics, and this guy, too. An insane Choice or Choice of the insane? That said, after relieving their "burdens" of state and mind, they're feeling much better now. Rehabilitated with sympathetic, empathetic consensus.
Democrats hate the rule of law. They prefer the rule of politics: "is this crime and criminal on my side or aligns with my prejudices?" That's why they will jail a trespasser in solitary for 2 years and demands that a Catholic boy who "smirked while Catholic" be fed into a wood chipper.... but defend and celebrate a pedophile filming and raping a 5 year old in a public restroom.
He only dismembered, boiled and dined on her because he panicked, they said.
Which would mean he knew what he did was WRONG.
If we consider possible reactions to an accidental killing, dismembering and cannibalizing the victim isn't at the top of the list.
If she was the "holdout," then 11 jurors changed their vote from G to NG by insanity on her insistence, since there was no mistrial. I find it hard to believe they'd bend to that twat. I can believe she's stupid enough to have originally voted not guilty period.
loudogblog said...
"Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd..."
lololol
*The Althouse Club was right to cheer on the Clancy holdout juror because...... they felt like it, it agreed with their biases.*
The fact you're STILL on the side of the jurors who wore pink in support of a mother who strangled her three children - not to mention the lunatics outside the courthouse supporting a mother who premeditated the murder of her three children - makes you an immoral piece of shit full of your own biases.
Also, do let me know if the DA in this particular case went public castigating Sunny The Holdout. Also, let me know if the wife of the DA in this case doxxed Sunny The Holdout.
You've really shown yourself during the last three weeks, and none of it good.
---- makes you an immoral piece of shit full of your own biases.
Very persuasive, Jim. You are making me re-think. : )
Here is the thing that still keeps me on the side of the insanity verdict (almost-verdict). The benzodiazapines and their interactions with other drugs like anti-anxieties and anti-depressants. Clancy had a few others, too. Most of the comments on this site showed little to no knowledge of the possible effects of these drugs, especially when piled into an already-disintegrating personality.
To answer in your own style -- most of the comments made here, from your "side" of this issue, were pure crap and ignorant, IMO.
Achilles..... I love you, man, but you are crazy. Your strident killer tone is why the kind of "liberalism" you dislike started to take hold, 50-60 years ago. You want to kill all your opponents, you show more in common with Lenin than with any of this nation's founders.
@boatbuilder -- JMO. We are all watching from outside the actual reality of that case. None of us know what it was. But I do have some knowledge of one important aspect of the issue and it was very clear that many commenters here did not. The only people who were close enough that they would be asked to judge voted 11-1, remember. I give that weight. I don't jump to the conclusion that they were all liberal Karens trying to destroy western civilization. YMMV.
She murdered three children methodically maybe demon possession
@boatbuilder "In Clancy's case the defense claims that she was suffering from psychosis are highly questionable (8 months after birth, the claimed voices occurring only at the time of the killings, etc.) "
My uneducated guess is that you don't have the natural born architecture to get pregnant and give birth... The whole process f***s hard with mental health well after birth, especially when there are multiple children involved.
That said, if all things were equal but she strangled 3 adult family members, would these people be supporting her insanity claim?
She relieved her "burdens" of state and mind with affirmative action to entertain abortive ideation through planned or premeditated personhood that revealed her character disposition. Like others who commit abortion, she can never be trusted again. The insanity plea is an article of faith that denies women's dignity and agency with sympathetic, empathetic support of like-minded transhumanists, Planned Parenthood umbrella corporation, and misogynists in support of RAAT (e.g. #MeToo).
Demon possession would certainly have been the old-fashioned view.
From comments her mother made, it seemed that Mrs. Clancy never had the strongest grip on reality and functioning in the world. Her mother said she was so relieved that her daughter had married and had children; that's a normal reaction, but the way she said it made it seem she had been concerned about this daughter for a long time before.
I don't understand why the husband, and the two sets of parents who were close enough geographically to be quite involved, couldn't recognize how bad things were getting. And devise some system for relieving the deteriorating mother of more of her duties. But maybe they did. As I said above, we're all far away and unknowing of the daily realities.
My sense of the case is that this woman is, and was already, destroyed. She is now permanently destroyed, mentally as well as physically, because if she ever comes back to sanity or normalcy, she will be tortured the rest of her days by what she did. She brought these three children into the world and then she took them out of it, too. And she then paralyzed herself trying, with whatever degree of sincerity her jump may have embodied -- trying to kill herself.
Life is difficult for most people. This was an extreme case of somebody who could not function in the society we have made. She was trying to play a certain role, but it was evidently not coming naturally to her AT ALL. A third child did her in, mentally.
Then came the drugs, her attempt to get back to normal. Instead, she became more disturbed than ever. The doctors switched their prescriptions around, changed dosages, added more, stopped this one to prescribe that one. Why did they do that? Because the medical world has such a thorough grasp of how these drugs work and what they will do to a patient?
Mrs. Clancy said herself, to her mother, that she had lost the person she once was, and that she feared she would never recover her. I believe her. And there are certainly some physical symptoms that the benzos will bring on that apparently never leave the patient, even if he stops the drug. Some of the mental and emotional effects might be similar. They can do good things for many people, but I wouldn't even use the word "most" in this sentence. They are unpredictable, to say the least. They create dependency and then they stop working. Or they start to produce very different results than they once had produced.
If this wasn't insanity, the place in which she ended up, what else could it have been?
What do we do now with this broken human? Even a touch of mercy may not be merciful, it might be her worst outcome.
But, as for the commenters here -- in regards to this particular post subject of Sunny Hostin as the holdout juror, is there anything I said in that 5:06 pm comment that is not true? One time you love it, one time you hate it. That's our legal system and it works both ways. Plenty of Americans might choose the opposite stances on the two cases from those of the majority here. If it IS a majority, but it probably was. There are more than a few commenters here who can't wait to shut up any disagreement with their opinions and drive such folks off the site. But for what? What does that gain?
Hostin has sympathetic, empathetic support from abortionists, cannibals, and other like-minded persons and umbrella corporations. Clancy, too, by those who entertain abortive ideation, the wicked solution to relieve "burdens" of state and mind. Those persons who perform human rites for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. And misogynists, transhumanists who deny women's dignity, agency, and physiology.
I can only see Clancy as a natural progression from abortion at birth. There is no way that stays as the limit.
Was Hostin lying about being the holdout juror?
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2103154873537794120
...'This should drive her off the program.
She blatantly lied about her role as a juror in this case.
She claimed she was a holdout juror who convinced the other 11 who wanted to convict to change their minds.
But this article written at the time reveals her to be lying.
Grok confirms her true name prior to changing it was “Asunción Cummings.”...'
She was stupid enough to think this would never happen.
How did she get through Law school other than acing DEI?
Kai Akker said...
Demon possession would certainly have been the old-fashioned view.
From comments her mother made, it seemed that Mrs. Clancy never had the strongest grip on reality and functioning in the world.
You are a stupid person who wants children dead. You have no reasoning capability and your stupidity is dangerous.
If Clancey was as broken and crazy as you want to pretend she would have asked her husband to help her kill her children.
She did not ask her husband to help. She knew he would try to stop her and therefore she knew what she was doing was evil and wrong.
You cannot stay on topic and you are just a flailing stupid person and you look dumber every time you post.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
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.