A waste of 15 minutes.

Despite the fact that his wife has confessed to these murders and provided much detail as to how she went about committing them, there are many people who have accused Patrick Clancy of being the actual murderer.

The man has been vilified and dehumanized to the point of his becoming a mere abstraction. The way he has been treated is obscene and shameful. It's not enough for his accusers, that he came home and discovered the lifeless bodies of his children, and automatically lost his wife in the process. His family was taken from him. It's difficult to imagine experiencing this, and then have to get out of bed every morning and face it all over again.

He deserves to be heard, and this interview will be widely viewed. Its broadcast will be beneficial, not only to him, but also to society in general and I think that some minds will be changed, even if those among his accusers will never be able to admit it.

So, no, I wouldn't call it a waste, of any sort.

One glance and I immediately liked Mr. Desronvil. He looks like good man.

“The holdout juror who refused to acquit Lindsay Clancy has told of how he held firm as the other 11 tried to convince him to find her not guilty by reason of insanity for strangling her three children.

The man, whom NewsNation identified as Michael P Desronvil, told the outlet he 'didn't have any doubts' - refuting the jury foreperson's earlier remarks.

He said: 'As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberations, I kept getting cut off as I had doubts based on the evidence present.' …”

https://mol.im/a/16139513

Regardless of what happens in the next trial, I can see some lawsuits emerging from this fiasco. (both from the husband and the one sane juror)

Prosecutor needs to be fired for allowing a jury that was loaded with white liberal suburban women to hold a majority of seats and they had to know they would push for insanity over conviction.

This should have been a slam dunk, she admitted it, there should have been zero empathy from anyone, that judge should have stopped all the blame game on society, her medications and her husband.

You put 3 or 4 black women, to counter the other white liberals, maybe even another black male, and a couple of men with real balls vs leftist scared men and that would have been a different outcome.

I'm not so sure they (the state) didn't want her convicted, and wanted an insanity result by jury.

^^ Your post would seem to indicate that you do not fully understand the jury selection process. Lawyers (Prosecution and Defense) do not get to pick who is ON the jury, they get some say in who is excluded from the jury, but that power is NOT unlimited. The prosecution or defense have two ways to object to potential jurors and hopefully prevent them from being seated. They can either 'Challenge for Cause' in which case they need to convince the Judge that the prospective juror is unfit for service, or they can use 'Peremptory Challenges' which do not require the judge's approval, but they only have a limited number of Peremptory Challenges available. Ultimately, they can only exclude so many...It's most likely that there's just SO many insane AWFL mAssholes in the jury pool that they could not all be excluded.

It's true that a blue jury might do anything. It's one of the problems of sharing a country with leftists. It's only going to get worse. It turns our legal system into a subjective farce. I don't even have any confidence that a blue jury will convict the assassin Mangione of his crimes. I doubt a jury will convict her in that cesspool. We got lucky with a sane juror who wasn't intimidated by the feelings crowd.

^^ Spot on, nhracecraft. At the end of jury selection, the prosecutors did the best they could with the cards they were given. And I'll bet dollars to donuts many of the women on the jury lied thru their asses during questioning and had already made up their minds Clancy was not guilty of murder.

quote:

And I'll bet dollars to donuts many of the women on the jury lied thru their asses during questioning and had already made up their minds Clancy was not guilty of murder.

I'll take that bet. And how is it not perjury?

I wonder what effect this case and the publicity about the jury “holdout” will have on other trials—if any.

Will it encourage more people on juries to hold to their principles and refuse to be swayed by other members (and which would cut both ways)?

Or will it make it clearer to prospective jurors that they should do everything possible to not get selected and thereby be subjected to life-altering attacks if they don’t or can’t go along with the rest?

Or neither? Despite all the coverage many of us are familiar with, does the average American these days even pay attention to such things?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

The man has been vilified and dehumanized to the point of his becoming a mere abstraction. The way he has been treated is obscene and shameful.

I couldn’t agree more and have said this since this hit the public. This poor man. Lost his kids to murder and having this play out in public. I don’t even have the words to describe how much pain this man is in.

We are all tired of men bad, women good. If it was a man that had done this, shit would be over. Double standards are bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
It's true that a blue jury might do anything. It's one of the problems of sharing a country with leftists. It's only going to get worse. It turns our legal system into a subjective farce. I don't even have any confidence that a blue jury will convict the assassin Mangione of his crimes. I doubt a jury will convict her in that cesspool. We got lucky with a sane juror who wasn't intimidated by the feelings crowd.

You touch on so many things... and I think all of it is correct.
She won't be convicted of pre-meditated, first-degree murder in that State.

Could lesser charges lead to a plea deal?

Prosecutors could also decide to retry Clancy or seek a plea agreement on lower charges, according to Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston University School of Law. Clancy was charged with first-degree murder, but jurors were able to consider lesser charges including second-degree murder and manslaughter during deliberations.

Diner said if Cruz opted to retry Clancy on a less serious offense, she could request to waive her right to a jury trial and have a judge decide her fate. But Diner said the court would have to agree to the move.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...retrial/91659239007/

This insanity is not new; it's merely been made conspicuous by the Clancy case.

https://x.com/NJBeisner/status/2101448229510684811

That stupid bitch thinks Muslims believe in left wing philosophy.

Who is selling these lies to these leftist idiots???

I am convinced there is an element pushing an agenda to sell lies as the truth, that men are bad, that marriage is bad and children are disposable like a used tampon.

Leftists are dangerous.

quote:

Leftists are dangerous.

I believe we will find out just how dangerous they really are when they lose in the midterms. I feel like there’s a lot of desperate lazy assholes with little to no income out there that are depending on a win so that the utopian society can begin.

Seen elsewhere today:

"This might sound crazy, but what would the verdict have been if Lindsay Clancy had killed George Floyd?"

and

"Question: If Lindsay Clancy shot up a school because she was in postpartum psychosis... does that still make her not guilty?"

Oh, my

Reid's racism reigns

https://x.com/WesternLensman/s.../2102372036525928730

Leftist eat each other via intersectionality.

"microaggressions"? Give me a fukkin' break.