Two things: the female jurors need to shut the hell up. We get it — you wanted child killer Lindsay Clancy to get away with it—Second, what a nasty piece of work NBC Boston was by pretty much leading the online leftist activist community right to the man. His family was targeted; then his brother started yapping, another ‘what the hell are you doing’ moment; and finally, his disclosure, despite the judge sealing the names of the jury.
It’s not unusual for jurors to spill their guts after a trial, or for other profiles to be written about the rest of the body, but that’s only after the court releases their names. Alex Gutentag of Public delved into the sordid antics the progressive Left has displayed since the trial.
The lone juror who prevented a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict was Michael Desronvil, a Catholic MAGA supporter from a Haitian immigrant family. So the Left, which claims to be the vanguard for all black people, attacked a black man because he didn’t go along with the shenanigans of insufferable suburban white women after ten thousand bottles of wine. NBC Boston went to unusual lengths to attack Desronvil, who, as it seems, was the only person to look at the evidence and not view this case as one where children must be sacrificed for a larger discussion about mental health. It’s a lengthy and thorough post about this case devolving into a circus, how leftist logic leads to nothing but brain rot, and how if this is how leftists behave on juries, our system of justice might be in severe trouble (via Public):
The NBC Boston story is part of a larger public smear campaign that began before a mistrial was even declared. The jury foreperson initially alleged that the holdout was not faithfully applying the law during deliberations. Kevin Reddington, Clancy’s defense attorney, tried to have the juror removed and accused him of “bias” against people with mental illness.
The holdout, the foreperson said in a later interview, had acknowledged “reasonable doubt” but still would not agree to a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) verdict. He was “arrogant,” a female juror said, and refused to listen. He “mimicked” the strangulation of Clancy’s children, a young male juror agreed, saying his behavior was “disgusting.” An anonymous female juror said the holdout did not back up his views with “any logic.” And, said another juror, he “didn’t make any sense” and was bizarrely concerned with the volume of blood spatter from Clancy’s suicide attempt. The holdout “robbed” Clancy and the other jurors, Reddington said. “I hope that guy can sleep well at night,” he added.
This weeks-long effort to shame and dox the holdout will taint future jury pools if Clancy is retried. For the jury system to function, individual jurors must be able to follow their individual conscience; normalizing intimidation to achieve a unanimous verdict undermines trial by jury altogether. Jurors in any controversial case will now have reasonable fears that if they do not acquiesce to the group, they will face consequences.
Part of what makes these actions so remarkable is that the holdout juror is black, and in other circumstances, progressives would have referred to the media-supported targeting of the holdout as “racist.” After all, jurors repeatedly insulted the only person of color on the jury as stupid and immoral, Clancy fans attacked him online, and a retaliatory press published his personal information.
[…]
Contrary to the other jurors’ claims, the holdout may have been the only person truly assessing the evidence for criminal responsibility and correctly applying the law. The juror who revealed to Gayle King on “CBS Mornings” that the holdout was black also inadvertently revealed that much of what the jury had said about him was untrue.
He actually did present his reasoning, she admitted. One of his main points was that Clancy “could do this one at a time and do all the steps she did.” In other words, the holdout was focused on the evidence showing that Clancy’s actions were organized and controlled, and not reflective of psychosis, which pointed to criminal responsibility.
The holdout’s handling of the exercise bands Clancy killed her children with was not “mimicry,” but likely an effort to assess the force required to keep the bands in place. Other jurors reportedly handled them similarly, but later “apologized” to the young male juror who was upset by it. Jurors can examine permitted evidence, and the murder weapon was relevant because the defense claimed that Clancy had simply tied the bands around her children’s necks and left them there. In reality, she would have had to apply constant pressure for several minutes, three times, to kill each child.
The holdout’s questions about the blood splatter in Clancy’s bedroom may have also been important for determining her state of mind. If there appeared to be a large amount of blood but the pattern was controlled without evidence of spray, then the cuts would probably not be deep enough to be life-threatening. This could reflect how much Clancy hesitated in her suicide attempt, which may be inconsistent with a true psychotic break.
The foreperson’s accusation that the holdout admitted to reasonable doubt appears to have been false. The juror King interviewed said the “doubt” the holdout expressed was about “murder in the first degree,” not about Clancy’s criminal responsibility. The jury, per the judge’s instruction, was to consider lesser charges of second-degree murder or manslaughter if they did not agree on first-degree murder. The instructions did not state that doubt about first-degree murder meant jurors had to reach an NGRI verdict.
Jurors’ depiction of the holdout as apathetic and intellectually deficient is not consistent with previous reports about the black juror’s behavior. One reporter from the court said she was “shocked” that the holdout was the black juror, since he had been highly engaged, seemed attentive to Reddington, and even nodded when defense experts testified. Another reporter had previously said he “sits forward” and “is reactive as could be.” She said he “is not happy when the prosecution is saying the wrong things, when Lindsay cries he gets sad.” These accounts paint a picture of someone who listened to the defense and considered all arguments.
When the jurors began deliberations, eight were leaning toward NGRI, two were undecided, and two thought she was guilty. The holdout apparently tried to ensure that everyone was heard in the room, one juror said. “He would get upset and say, ‘Listen to what she’s saying, listen to what he’s saying, be respectful,’” she recalled. But this, to her, was an unreasonable request.
The other jurors do not appear to have listened to both sides. An older female juror said she dismissed the prosecution because they were too “harsh.” She said she was glad Reddington “shot from his heart,” didn’t introduce more “medical BS,” and instead focused on “who Lindsay is and what her life was like.”
Multiple jurors have admitted to applying the law incorrectly. Jurors are only supposed to determine criminal responsibility, not weigh sentencing in their verdicts. The anonymous female juror said she had at first thought Clancy was guilty, but she changed her mind when considering that an insanity verdict was the best way to get Clancy “the help that she desperately needed.”
A second juror also said her decision was based on getting Clancy “the help she needs.” She added that her verdict was “not guilty by reason of a mental illness,” which is not legal. “Mental illness” alone is not grounds for an NGRI verdict. If every person with a mental illness could be found “not guilty” for violent crimes, it would be impossible to incarcerate the majority of violent criminals.
The jurors’ claims about the black male juror not following the law, and not considering the evidence, appear to have been projection. The black male juror’s real offense was actually his failure to support a predetermined, politicized narrative about women, motherhood, and mental health. “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women…” said one of the female jurors.
Social activism became the purpose of the trial in the eyes of the jurors, the media, and much of the public. To “get justice” for the children, the same juror said in a different interview, “the medical community needs to acknowledge that this exists, and everybody can manifest it in a different way... That’s all the evidence that we looked at… There is a clear indication that the medical community failed her.”
The idea of a psychiatric disorder that any woman “can manifest in a different way” points to a circular logic: No sane woman would kill her children; therefore, Clancy must have been insane. Witnesses said Clancy loved her children, so “she had to have snapped,” one juror said. “There wasn’t one person on either side that could say anything bad about her,” said another.
Jurors’ focus on marking a “turning point” for women prevented a rigorous examination of the facts. There is a clear parallel to the O.J. Simpson trial, in which some jurors voted to acquit him of murder for political reasons. The acquittal was “payback” for Rodney King, one juror confirmed. The Clancy case is also, in many ways, a natural extension of the logic behind “criminal justice reform.” These reforms, intended to combat “structural racism” in blue cities and states have led to repeated incidents of violent individuals with multiple arrests being continuously released. It is the same mentality, which views the law as fundamentally unfair and harmful, that motivated the Clancy jurors.
Under a progressive ideological commitment, Clancy’s violence, and all violence, is the failure of some system. Such an ideology turns perpetrators into victims. And it adopts the perpetrator’s own logic instead of opposing it. From Clancy’s perspective, she was suffering and wanted to die, and it was her right to take her children with her. This is the same framing espoused by her fans, and by 11 of the jurors: the degree of Clancy’s suffering somehow makes the murders acceptable.
“The judgment advanced by 11 jurors and by Clancy’s supporters in the general public has significant implications for our concept of “insanity.” Their approach, in which any aberrant behavior is excused as uncontrollable mental illness, makes accountability impossible,” wrote Gutentag, who later added that there was more than enough evidence to find Clancy guilty if 11 people on this jury were idiots extraordinaire in their deliberations.
But this case circles back to everything the Left does when things don't go their way: they throw a tantrum and feel a need to destroy. Regarding people, they encounter those with whom disagree with their views, and they're deemed evil and must be punished.