Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, is so full of rage at the one juror, now publicly identified, who held firm against a bevy of arrogant, activist, feminist harpies because he knew that there is no legal rationale for killing one’s own three young children. Reddington is demanding that the judge in the case, Judge Sullivan, provide that juror’s phone records, surveillance cameras from the hall outside the deliberation room, his original jury form, his alleged criminal record, and anything else that he thinks he can use to have this man’s lone, brave guilty vote deemed invalid so Clancy can be deemed acquitted and be spared a second trial. What Reddington is doing is “irresponsible and dangerous,” to quote Jonathan Turley in his fine column on this controversy.
Read more Exiling ‘Sweet Caroline’
Reddington, Boston NBC, and a vicious host of Lindsay Clancy’s mind-numbed online and court supporters — even Gayle King — have set out to not only dox this man, but to destroy him. They believe that his guilty vote is a crime!
Isn’t this illegal? Uh, yes it is. But the pro-Lindsay crowd, all those hardcore feminists who, in Massachusetts, have the right to abort their babies up to the moment of birth, believe there is an excuse for strangling to death her beautiful kids, ages five, three, and eight months. Postpartum psychosis aside, there is no excuse, legal or otherwise, for her particularly evil crime.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt,” for some reason, is apparently a difficult concept, which jurors think means beyond all doubt, proven beyond all doubt.
When the jury in Los Angeles found OJ Simpson “not guilty,” several of those jurors later admitted to doing so to “settle scores,” to get even with the government they perceived as oppressive, unfair to black defendants.
According to one woman on the Clancy jury, the women saw in her case an opportunity to create a movement of awareness of postpartum depression. They seemingly gave no thought to the dead kids. However, starting a movement was not the job with which they were tasked. Like hundreds of radical judges funded by George Soros and appointed by Obama and Biden, the Clancy jurors sympathized with the murderer, not her victims. The dead children were…well, dead. They fell for Reddington’s delusional defense like the mind-numbed radical feminists they are, and that includes the two men who voted not guilty. Too many men have been tragically feminized by three generations of angry feminists. Only one righteous, courageous man held his ground. Only that one man remembered those three dead children.
Read more James Talarico: The anti-Christian Christian seminarian
If Judge Sullivan caves to the outrageous demands of Reddington, who will ever again volunteer or show up for jury duty? If sticking to one’s principles, be they moral, religious, or constitutional, can lead to public harassment, investigation of one’s personal life to the point receiving death threats, why submit to such a horror?
That juror has had to leave his home and take refuge in a safe house because he stayed true to himself, a rare quality in a person in this age of indoctrination and wokery. He is a man to be admired, not scorned.
Reddington is so out of line. Lindsay Clancy, despite her alleged postpartum depression or psychosis, obviously planned to do what she did. She must not be excused for the murder of her three kids.
The lone juror certainly passed the measure of a man test. He should be commended, not stalked and threatened. As for Reddington, he probably needs to be disbarred for his verbal and attempted legal assault on this lone juror who remembered the children.
“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Read more What do AI and Donald Trump have in common?
—MLK Jr.
Image via Picryl.