Heather

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@RepThomasMassie But they care sooooo much about the children. Just look at their outrage and seething over Lindsay Clancy. 🥴🥴 Just more fake & selective outrage to push political bs and division. 😒

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@JackPosobiec We are holding out for the Epstein clan… do those children matter too? Will we see any justice being served to those POS? New trial incoming. Anything incoming with this bullshit? False outrage. 🙄

[Ivanka Gog @GogIvanka]

The irony in the Lindsay Clancy trial -
The jury is BEGGING FOR HELP because one juror is not following the law. . .
and they recieved no help.

[Justice Served @JusticeServedTV]

Before the break...6 attorneys in the Courtroom...all on cellphones. KR seemed cool as a cucumber when leaving the Courtroom.

[Aidan Kearney @DoctorTurtleboy]

The fact that the commonwealth is asking for a mistrial is pretty telling

[Charista Snell 🦅 @charistasnell]

We are in procedural limbo right now.

Judge Sullivan indicated he believes a mistrial is necessary, BUT he agreed to hold off for roughly ONE HOUR so Kevin Reddington can seek emergency appellate relief.

In plain English: Reddington is trying to get a higher court to step in BEFORE this jury is discharged.

The likely request is for an emergency stay — essentially asking the appellate court to STOP the mistrial process long enough to review Sullivan’s handling of the holdout juror, including his refusal to further investigate or remove that juror.

So as of right now:

• The jury is still technically alive.
• The mistrial has not been fully finalized.
• Reddington is trying to keep this jury empaneled and get immediate appellate review.

If the higher court grants relief, this could pause the mistrial process. If it denies relief, Sullivan could then move forward with declaring the mistrial and discharging the jury.

This is a major procedural moment. Stay close.

#independentreporting #lindsayclancytrial #lindsayclancycase #independentjournalism #trialcoverage

[Ivanka Gog @GogIvanka]

So the Massachusetts "Justice System" is willing to put the victims:
Patrick Clancy, the Clancy Family, the Musgrove family, everyone that knew & loves. Cora, Dawson & Callan, 18 jurors & the court staff through the trauma of another trial - over one juror who
"made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states".

[Jessica Dalton 🇺🇸 @TheRemnantView]

If all of your smoke and anger is being directed at 11 jurors you don’t know, or worse, at a defense attorney whose literal job is to fiercely advocate for his client, while somehow none of that anger is directed at the two Commonwealth prosecutors who did an atrocious job presenting their case, then I fear emotion has officially outrun logic.

They flip-flopped on what they were even arguing, presented a theory so inconsistent that the defense could read portions of the Commonwealth’s own opening statement back to THEIR OWN expert and get disagreement from him.

You can hate the outcome. You can hate what happened. But if you’re looking for someone to blame for the Commonwealth failing to persuade 12 jurors, maybe start with the people whose job it was to persuade them.

[Ashleigh Merchant @AshleighMerchan]

This is INSANE.

If one juror has doubts about guilt but is refusing to vote NOT GUILTY, that juror is not entitled to manufacture a guilty verdict simply because they refuse to move.

Reasonable doubt = NOT GUILTY.

And the State is actually OBJECTING to removing this juror?

The system is not supposed to be about forcing a mistrial just so the state can try again at all costs.

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@ketchersid_sh @BrianEntin No. Looks like one person isn’t abiding by the oath they took and that 11 are saying the prosecution didn’t meet the criteria needed to convince them. Should have been a slam dunk for the kids, but here we are…

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@kallieswfla @conlin_lauren No. It’s one thing if they truly feel one way but to imply that they have doubt and still going for a conviction goes against the oath they took, the law, and the direction of the judge. You can’t use emotion to convict.

[Bridget Ayers @BridgetAyers]

Jury Drama in the Lindsay Clancy Deliberation.

The judge just re-explained reasonable doubt and reminded the jurors that they are required to follow his instructions on the law.

Apparently, someone reported that a juror was refusing to accept or follow those instructions.

The judge questioned each juror individually at sidebar and asked whether they could follow the law as instructed. They all said yes.

Reddington objected and wanted that juror removed.

The Commonwealth argued that they should be allowed to continue deliberating because no one really knows exactly what is being said inside that jury room. The judge said he did not want to take sides, and because each juror affirmed they could follow the law, he sent them back.

Legally, I can understand why he did it. Removing a deliberating juror because the other jurors say that person “isn’t following the law” gets very dangerous, very fast. If that juror is also a holdout, removing them could look a lot like removing someone because of their position in deliberations.

But this jury has already deliberated for roughly 35 hours, reported a deadlock, received the Tuey-Rodriguez charge, and now there is apparently an internal dispute over whether someone is even applying the law correctly.

At some point, you have to ask whether continuing to send them back is resolving anything or just increasing the pressure inside an already exhausted and divided jury room.

[Salty_145 @salty_prod145]

The real wake-up call with all this really should be how scary “a jury of your peers” has become.

It almost feels like a threat: “We’re gonna take 12 random strangers off the street who don’t want to be there and may or may not have a room temp IQ and ask them to decide your fate on the basis of complex legal arguments”

[Matt Johnston @MattInformed]

The jury that I recently served on was hung because:

1. Three jurors refused to discuss the evidence with an open mind. At the start of deliberations, they declared: “I will never change my mind on this. You could never convince me otherwise.” They demanded a hung jury verdict in the first hour of deliberations - simply because our initial vote was split. That was a violation of jury instructions.

2. Very few of the jurors were able to take the entire case in context, and parse through all the testimonies and evidence to decipher what we believed was the truth. They wanted to pick 1 testimony as the perfect telling and did not know how to decide given discrepancies between them all.

3. Two jurors kept objecting to points of discussion because of “bias” that they claimed we were invoking into our deliberations. These jurors claimed that some of the evidence submitted during trial could not be considered by the jury because it would “trigger our biases.” They kept interjecting “that’s bias” or “you’re just biased” or “that’s your bias tainting the evidence.” Other jurors responded to this defensively and would back down at the accusations.

4. One juror in particular - totally woke - viewed the entire world as groups (oppressors) and individuals (victims) and so would not accept anything as true, right, or good that could come from the group (they were the accusers), and defaulted to the individual (the accused) as the only possible honest person. She refused to accept any testimony or evidence offered by the group, and became visibly shaken and angry if any other juror questioned the integrity or testimony of the accused - a testimony that was filled with errors and contradictions.

She was also very condescending to all others.

5. Multiple jurors declared it was “impossible to decide the facts of the case” because there was no video evidence. They lamented that we don’t have “surveillance like in the UK” in all public places, and as such it would be impossible to determine the facts of this case. If t hey could not see the events, they would not believe them.

6. Several jurors could not understand the written law, even after being provided explanations and instructions from the court. They simply could not comprehend. Not that they disagreed, but they could not understand.

7. Two jurors kept interrupting the process of discussion saying “you’re wasting our time” and they kept telling us they wanted to vote and go home and put this mess behind us.

Alas…a hung jury was the right outcome. Not because of the case, but because of the deficiency of the jury.

[Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 @FmrRepMTG]

Our multibillionaire President’s Labor Day message is telling the American tax paying slaves they don’t work enough and need to work more to fund his historically high government spending, never ending Iran War, and import his foreign mystery meat, while he goes golfing at one of his many private golf courses with his best buddies in the Epstein class.
Meanwhile in the real world college graduates can’t find a job, in most families both parents work their tails off, many Americans work 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet, and the national price of gas is still above $4/gallon.
It’s not the American people who need to change their ways.
Actually, they voted for Trump to change the Swamp in order to Make America Great Again!
But instead, it turns out Trump was the very snake he warned about all along.

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@in_steeler @SueOC_NBCBoston These are the EXACTTT thoughts going through my head.

[Raven_Heart66 @Raven_Heart13]

My father-in-law was DRAFTED for the Vietnam War. He earned a Purple Heart repairing tanks in active hot zones. He stayed longer than required.

While he was overseas fighting, the government let his home be foreclosed on. He lost his Redondo Beach home, his guitars, his boat, and his prize Roadrunner car.

He came back with nothing but a severe case of PTSD.When he tried to use his GI Bill, the military told him it DID NOT COUNT BECAUSE HE WAS DRAFTED.

To this day, the VA and the Army claim his children receive zero benefits because drafted service 'doesn't count.' His ultimate sacrifice was treated like nothing.

He passed away in November 2004. The military refused to pay to bury him for nearly 20 years.

Because his family was kept in systemic poverty by these denied benefits, his remains sat in a Ziploc bag in a closet until July 2023 when they finally agreed to a burial.

The medical care he did manage to receive at Loma Linda VA was completely abysmal.

NEVER LET THEM FOOL YOU WITH PROMISES OF DEBT RELIEF OR GI BILL BENEFITS.

IF THEY DRAFT YOU, THEY WILL NOT PAY UP. I SAW IT FIRSTHAND.

[Ivanka Gog @GogIvanka]

Did Linsay Clancy have strep pneumo on January 24th?
With all the evidence showing the link between Postpartum Psychosis & the immune system, it would be interesting to know when she was first diagnosed with strep pneumo.

[Ivanka Gog @GogIvanka]

During closing arguments Jennifer Sprague talks about Lindsay Clancys journals and states;
"someone who's been so meticulous about everything, all the way up to January 18th and it just stops. It's as if she's decided she's done trying. She's decided that it's too much and she doesn't want to do it anymore. And so she just stops keeping track of the prescriptions."

But do these web searches made by Lindsay on January 18th look like the web searches of a person who's "done trying"??

[Heather @Heather00488684]

@yasminejaberr @SueOC_NBCBoston Hearing 9 women 3 men.