ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is addressed to both sides, those convinced of guilt and those convinced of not guilty. It's a neutral admonition.

---

I mean the way he essentially delivered it. Asking the "not guilty-s" to become 100% certain of guilt is much less likely than the "guilty-s" finding 1 tiny doubt to justify changing.

FTAG 2000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

HOLD THE LINE pic.twitter.com/tpAUCiIZ0U

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 1, 2026

---

Reports today seem to point to two female jurors as the holdouts, with them going so far as to wear pink yesterday and today.

Seems like it's 10-2 right now.

---

22% of females are downright psychotic. That tracks.

Logos Stick said:

---

I wonder if they are hung on guilty at all, or the charge itself?

---

I was just thinking the same. Are the girlboss holdout trying to push for full acquittal because they think she didn't do it or is the stalemate over NGRI v. Murder 1

Hardcore Greg said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

HOLD THE LINE pic.twitter.com/tpAUCiIZ0U

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 1, 2026

---

Reports today seem to point to two female jurors as the holdouts, with them going so far as to wear pink yesterday and today.

Seems like it's 10-2 right now.

---

22% of females are downright psychotic. That tracks.

---

I call BS.

It's way more than 22%.

The Banned said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is addressed to both sides, those convinced of guilt and those convinced of not guilty. It's a neutral admonition.

---

I mean the way he essentially delivered it. Asking the "not guilty-s" to become 100% certain of guilt is much less likely than the "guilty-s" finding 1 tiny doubt to justify changing.

---

Did the judge really say that???? Those are two statements that are absolutely not the law.

If the case is re-tried, I hope it's another judge. This guy blew it from day one not sequestering the jury and working half days.

Yea, I have an opinion, but it's certainly not professional. So I just sit back and watch.

However, this is kinda interesting. Talk about a happy hour conversation.

I wrote a post that has gone viral. I mean heavily viral. People are stealing it copying it reposting it, but it is mine. And I love that this lady has done this with my post. 👥 Watch. @lonedragonfly #fyp #trending #coffee pic.twitter.com/kFdNpKcHBS

— Steve Mudflap McGrew’s REMASCULATE podcast (@REMASCULATE) September 1, 2026

Martin Cash said:

---

The Banned said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

The Tuey-Rodriguez instruction is addressed to both sides, those convinced of guilt and those convinced of not guilty. It's a neutral admonition.

---

I mean the way he essentially delivered it. Asking the "not guilty-s" to become 100% certain of guilt is much less likely than the "guilty-s" finding 1 tiny doubt to justify changing.

---

Did the judge really say that???? Those are two statements that are absolutely not the law.

If the case is re-tried, I hope it's another judge. This guy blew it from day one not sequestering the jury and working half days.

---

No, he did not. With some minor paraphrasing, what he said is below:

"In most cases, perhaps in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be obtained nor is it expected…The law imposes the burden of proof on one party…The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth to establish every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left in doubt of any element of the crime, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted...Consider whether a doubt in your own mind is reasonable if it makes no impression on another juror…"

I have seen some posts claiming that court insiders believe there are two women in the jury that refuse to back away from a not guilty verdict with the others ready to vote guilty.

bonfarr said:

---

I have seen some posts claiming that court insiders believe there are two women in the jury that refuse to back away from a not guilty verdict with the others ready to vote guilty.

---

To be fair, pretty sure this is speculation. I believe it's an educated guess based on the two women who continue to wear pink and the questions the jurors are asking the judge and their body language/attentiveness during these questions.

Sorry if already posted but this will hopefully not be a repeat of the Constance Fisher case. She killed her 3 children in 1954 and claimed postpartum psychosis and won. When the psych ward discharged her she had three more kids and proceeded to murder them too.

https://www.clarin.com/us-news/in-1954-before-lindsay-clancy-mother-drowned-her-3-children-and-avoided-prison-due-to-postpartum-psychosis-upon-leaving-the-psychiatric-hospital-she-had-3-more-and-murdered-them-again-the-tragic-story-of-constance-fisher_0_n8nIV1llgF.html

I know very little about criminal law and even less about the way the charges were presented in this circus of a case, but is something like that possible? As long as they lock her up and throw away the key, I don't really care if her cell is in a prison or a max security psych ward (thinking arkham asylum for this loony), but if she's someplace where she could get treatment and leave in a few years after some nut bag declares her cured, that's a hell of a problem.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I know very little about criminal law and even less about the way the charges were presented in this circus of a case, but is something like that possible? As long as they lock her up and throw away the key, I don't really care if her cell is in a prison or a max security psych ward (thinking arkham asylum for this loony), but if she's someplace where she could get treatment and leave in a few years after some nut bag declares her cured, that's a hell of a problem.

---

It happens. They let out the guy who shot Reagan too.

If this goes mistrial, which seems likely, I don't see how this doesn't happen again after a retrial. This lady is quite possibly going to face no consequences for strangling her own kids.

In the event that she does walk, one way or the other, what stops someone from being "violent" towards her? It's a question I've had about Casey Anthony as well, granted time tends to dull opinions but it's shocking that someone hasn't done something stupid. I think she's a vile excuse for a woman, but I'd rather the justice system have its day with her bug eyed ass.

CaptTex said:

---

In the event that she does walk, one way or the other, what stops someone from being "violent" towards her? It's a question I've had about Casey Anthony as well, granted time tends to dull opinions but it's shocking that someone hasn't done something stupid. I think she's a vile excuse for a woman, but I'd rather the justice system have its day with her bug eyed ass.

---

As already pointed out several times on this thread, one thing we can be certain of is that she ain't going to walk.

And the reality is that however this goes, she's either going to a hospital (mistrial, not guilty by reason of insanity) or prison. There's no way she's getting straight up acquitted.

And by the time she gets out, whether it's sooner or later, most people will have forgotten about this.

Saw a meme tonight: Now, imagine it was puppies. Sad, but I bet that meme holds true with a lot of libs.

How depraved has @CBC become?

Canada’s state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.

CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks… pic.twitter.com/DwgTyagyLJ

— Pro-life Canadian Man (@PeteBaklinski) September 2, 2026

Wow. This is disgusting.

Quote:

---

How depraved has
@CBC
become?

Canada's state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.

CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks how much easier the case would have been in Canada.

Canada already has an infanticide law: if a mother kills her own child under the age of one while her mind is "disturbed" from birth, the charge can drop to a lesser offence with a maximum of five years.

CBC's expert then names what, in her view, is the real problem: Clancy's two older children were past their first birthday, so the lesser charge of infanticide would not apply.

"That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law."

This is so twisted. It is almost diabolical.

Three children are dead. And what does the state broadcaster do? It platforms the idea that the defect is not the killings: it is that Canadian law would not reduce the charge for the mother killing her two children older than one.

Friends, this is how the ground gets prepared for horrific injustices against young human lives.

First, the child in the womb is dehumanized as a "blob of tissue," a "fetus," or a "product of conception," so abortion becomes acceptable.

Then, for children who are inconvenient after birth, they become a special legal category through infanticide laws that do not recognize their full humanity.

And, as CBC ruthlessly highlighted, the "shortcoming" is that toddlers are still treated as victims of murder.

CBC did not say "post-birth abortion." It did not have to. It treated more leniency after birth as the civilized positionand the age limit as the thing that needs fixing.

When a state broadcaster speaks this way, it is not just covering a trial. It is softening the public for what comes next.

---

techno-ag said:

---

Saw a meme tonight: Now, imagine it was puppies. Sad, but I bet that meme holds true with a lot of libs.

---

She would be on Death Row if she killed three dogs

Well…in Canada they'd be happy to kill a teenager depressed over a bad haircut

I get that and I agree, but anything less than life in prison/mental facility is walking to me. Which I know may not be the best way to look at this, but any outcome or conversation beyond immediate and severe punishment for those three kids is unacceptable. We can have a conversation about postpartum depression or any topic regarding motherhood and the difficulties they face, but not after you kill 3 kids, your conversation is over.

People do have the memory of a goldfish unfortunately, which is how politicians stay in office so long, but it makes you think after some of the things that have taken place recently.

I've pointed out over the years how increasingly problematic the jury system is becoming in our modern society, and I cant help but feel like this is another in an alarming number of recent cases reinforcing my points.

Between the jury statistics surrounding gender/ethnicity and bias, the complete abandonment of legislatively enforced juror standards over the last 50 years and the worsening political divide jury trials for at least high profile, charged criminal cases are becoming harder to justify. Too many Americans are simply too stupid, too biased and/or too indifferent to justice, and because we no longer have any checks against those people ending up on juries it's just a recipe for repeated disasters.

I know earlier the color pink for two jurors was discussed, I'm not sure how real that is. If it is, your point very well may be valid. In my own experience the justice system seems like a charade, masquerading as a regal and honorable mechanism.

Last trial I was involved in, a man was accused of driving without insurance. He very well may have, he was looking at $1,000.00 dollar fine, he didn't look like he had two pennies to rub together with all the holes in his sweat pants and nasty t-shirt. He chose to defend himself, the DAs minion, a pompous mid twenties boufont haired wind bag, made a long speech about the seriousness and solemnity of these proceedings. Then he asked if anyone had an issue with the case at hand, I explained my position in plain english and how this entire performance employing 3 police offers, the assistant DA a court reporter and a judge in a tax payer funded room surely cost more than the $1,000.00 ticket this man could face. They kindly struck me from the group.

You raise a fair point about high profile cases, but this rot extends to the lower levels of the judicial system which somehow actually seeks to disproportionately punish those who haven't hurt anyone.

If anyone knows about the 'Universe 25' experiment, lots of parallels happening in society these days. Does not bode well for the future.

I guess my point is that, while lawyers and judges can certainly be corrupt, they at least are required to justify their actions/decisions and can be held to account. That isn't the case for juries/jurors.

A judge ruling in a bench trial sees a trained legal professional defending their decision with precedent, case law and the facts of the case in question. And in places where bench trials are common there is usually an appeal option for both the defense AND prosecution. And judges found to be ruling in a biased manner consistently or taking bribes or whatnot can be held accountable.

A juror voting "not guilty" in a case where they know the defendant is in fact guilty has no concern whatsoever about what might happen to them down the road. A judge does.

boulderaggie said:

---

If anyone knows about the 'Universe 25' experiment, lots of parallels happening in society these days. Does not bode well for the future.

---

2nd Amendment did not exist in 'Universe 25'. Rats without guns can't fix chit, Just had to sit and watch demise of their universe. Just like Australians, Canadians, British etc.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I've pointed out over the years how increasingly problematic the jury system is becoming in our modern society, and I cant help but feel like this is another in an alarming number of recent cases reinforcing my points.

Between the jury statistics surrounding gender/ethnicity and bias, the complete abandonment of legislatively enforced juror standards over the last 50 years and the worsening political divide jury trials for at least high profile, charged criminal cases are becoming harder to justify. Too many Americans are simply too stupid, too biased and/or too indifferent to justice, and because we no longer have any checks against those people ending up on juries it's just a recipe for repeated disasters.

---

And it doesn't stop with juries.
These are the people we allow to vote.

The corruption in our society has completely derailed the intentions of our founders.
Their vision only works with a moral and educated populace.

Quote:

---

If this goes mistrial, which seems likely, I don't see how this doesn't happen again after a retrial. This lady is quite possibly going to face no consequences for strangling her own kids.

---

Ya'll might think I am crazy, but I bet the next push for the enemy of this nation is for states like Mass., to start pushing this to be the normal. By this I mean murder post birth. Why wouldn't they? What ever God promotes they support the opposite.

Feminism has beclowned itself.

And it killed Gloria Steinem too

I agree and if I were charged with a crime, I would not have a jury of my peers. There might be one net taxpayer, white Christian male, with above average intelligence on my jury, if I'm lucky.

The only way the jury is my peers is that they aren't politicians. But somehow several of them would have low IQ jobs in the government.

Clancy gets letters of support
By ED WHITE


On his way into the courthouse, defense attorney Kevin Reddington carried a box of letters in support of Clancy "from all over the world."
"It's just amazing. She reads them all," he told reporters.
Reddington said he's ready for a second trial if this one ends with a hung jury and the prosecutor wants to try again.
"I've got witnesses lined up. We're all set. So let's go," he said.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

If this goes mistrial, which seems likely, I don't see how this doesn't happen again after a retrial. This lady is quite possibly going to face no consequences for strangling her own kids.

---

Ya'll might think I am crazy, but I bet the next push for the enemy of this nation is for states like Mass., to start pushing this to be the normal. By this I mean murder post birth. Why wouldn't they? What ever God promotes they support the opposite.

---

"Oh come on, don't be crazy, we would neverrr do thAAAAaaat" episode 5,245

BadMoonRisin said:

---

How depraved has @CBC become?

Canada’s state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.

CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks… pic.twitter.com/DwgTyagyLJ

— Pro-life Canadian Man (@PeteBaklinski) September 2, 2026

Wow. This is disgusting.

Quote:

---

How depraved has
@CBC
become?

Canada's state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.

CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks how much easier the case would have been in Canada.

Canada already has an infanticide law: if a mother kills her own child under the age of one while her mind is "disturbed" from birth, the charge can drop to a lesser offence with a maximum of five years.

CBC's expert then names what, in her view, is the real problem: Clancy's two older children were past their first birthday, so the lesser charge of infanticide would not apply.

"That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law."

This is so twisted. It is almost diabolical.

Three children are dead. And what does the state broadcaster do? It platforms the idea that the defect is not the killings: it is that Canadian law would not reduce the charge for the mother killing her two children older than one.

Friends, this is how the ground gets prepared for horrific injustices against young human lives.

First, the child in the womb is dehumanized as a "blob of tissue," a "fetus," or a "product of conception," so abortion becomes acceptable.

Then, for children who are inconvenient after birth, they become a special legal category through infanticide laws that do not recognize their full humanity.

And, as CBC ruthlessly highlighted, the "shortcoming" is that toddlers are still treated as victims of murder.

CBC did not say "post-birth abortion." It did not have to. It treated more leniency after birth as the civilized positionand the age limit as the thing that needs fixing.

When a state broadcaster speaks this way, it is not just covering a trial. It is softening the public for what comes next.

---

---

I know there are some good people in the countryside, but hear me out...tactical nukes in the urban environments. Look at the turnaround Japan was able to make after we b*tch slapped em a couple times. Just think about it...

topoftexasag said:

---

Clancy gets letters of support
By ED WHITE


On his way into the courthouse, defense attorney Kevin Reddington carried a box of letters in support of Clancy "from all over the world."
"It's just amazing. She reads them all," he told reporters.
Reddington said he's ready for a second trial if this one ends with a hung jury and the prosecutor wants to try again.
"I've got witnesses lined up. We're all set. So let's go," he said.

---