National

The Mistrial and the Cost of a Bad Recedent

On Friday, a mistrial was declared, as apparently only one juror out of the twelve (one of the men) wanted to pronounce her guilty. We’ve already explored reasons why that could be in the last article, as common sense clearly left the jury deliberation room. The defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has made this juror’s stance public, in a pressure campaign to try to get him to switch his vote. He falsely claimed he wasn’t following the judge’s instructions about reasonable doubt, but how does he know what this juror was thinking? He doesn’t. And his antics can have serious consequences. This juror is now quite possibly subject to doxxing and being violently targeted, because that’s what left wing mobs do. Reddington ought to face serious consequences for his actions.

Think about what this guy went through. Every day leaving, having to face a horde of cultists, a media pressure campaign, peer pressure, and arm twisting. Why wasn’t this jury sequestered? It boggles the mind. There should not have been outside pressure or media influence on this jury. I’d be willing to wager that it would not have been 11-1 if they were sequestered. Now that we have this result, how can they possibly find another jury to try this again? Now that this story has so enthralled the public, it’s going to be hard to find unbiased jurors.

If We Can’t Agree Murder Is Wrong, Society May Be Doomed

The supporters of Clancy outside the courthouse are a cult following, just like Mangione and the others. And now the defense is claiming that 11 out of 12 jurors think she’s innocent and there’s only one holdout. How is this even possible? Maybe it isn’t. These claims are not confirmed, as of the time this article is being written. All we know is what the defense is claiming. Maybe it’s possible because Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the entire country. Or because the jury is made up of nine women and 3 men, and the men succumbed to a constant barrage of cultist complaining. Of course, these are hypothetical.

Many readers probably have not heard of the case of Constance Fisher. She supposedly had schizophrenia when, in 1954, she drowned her three children, aged 6, 4, and 11 months. (Similar to Clancy’s children, who were 5, 3, and 8 months.) She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was put in a mental institution. In a show of leniency, she only spent five years there, then was released. Meanwhile, for some reason, her husband stood by her the whole time. After her release, the couple had three more children. Then in 1966, she drowned those three children as well. They were eerily aged 6, 4, and 9 months. Almost exactly the same as the first three. Leniency and excuses are what led to the predictable outcome of the second set of children being murdered. She should have been on 24/7 watch.

If you cannot cringe, gasp, cry, or be appalled at the story of Constance Fisher, you are not a human being. Nobody could have possibly seen those second murders coming, right? Just horrible.