Showing posts with label Lindsay Clancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lindsay Clancy. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2026

Clancy Holdout On the Record

I already posted that the holdout juror finally responded. That was The Clancy Holdout Answered. Fugitive TV had him off camera. Ray Marcel called him Michael. I held the last name there.

This Fugitive TV cut is the follow-up. Michael called Marcel again. He hired a defamation lawyer. [VIDEO]

Over the weekend it became news that the holdout was Black. That was already in the last post. Paula Devlin told Gayle King that on CBS Mornings. King had to sit with it for a second. Some people tried to make the race the story.

Megyn Kelly got to that clip before the NY Post printed the rest.

Watch her here: [VIDEO]

Saturday, September 05, 2026

Sympathy Is Not a Verdict

Matt Walsh posted an instant reaction Friday afternoon to a hung jury in the Massachusetts trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Watch it here: [VIDEO]


The clip is not a tour of five weeks of testimony. Walsh’s argument is narrower. The only reason the case did not end in an acquittal, he says, is one holdout juror — a man, on a panel of nine women and three men — who would not join the others in finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, asked the judge to remove him, told a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court the juror was biased against people with mental illness, and invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court said no. Outside, Reddington said the other eleven had been “robbed by one man.”

Walsh puts that next to the Derek Chauvin jury. In Minneapolis, he says, jurors ignored the law and convicted Chauvin of murder because he did not inspire sympathy — even after, in Walsh’s telling, they understood George Floyd had overdosed. Deliberations are treated as closed, so the verdict stood. In Plymouth the pressure ran the other way: eleven ready to excuse the killings, and a public effort to pry out the one who would not. Walsh’s larger claim is the Massachusetts rule itself. The killings are not in dispute. The Commonwealth still has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was criminally responsible. He thinks no one can prove another person’s mind that way. A mistrial, to him, is only a relative win. His close is that the insanity defense should not exist.

The case underneath the clip is simpler than the argument about it.