The Lindsay Clancy saga took an unexpected turn last week when it was revealed that the holdout juror refusing to acquit was a black man. This information was revealed during a CBS interview with Gayle King and pro-Clancy juror Paula Devlin. King pressed Devlin, and she sheepishly admitted that the juror who had been unwilling to give Lindsay Clancy a pass was a thirty-something-year-old black man. Over the weekend, this man was identified (doxed) by name, and his picture was published online by a Massachusetts blogger called “Turtleboy.” Turtleboy even posted the city where this juror now resides.
In addition, NBC10 Boston dug into his personal life and has not only shown up at his house, but has also contacted family members for any dirt they can provide. They claim he owes back rent, was involved in domestic violence allegations that were dismissed in 2021, and has a current restraining order against him. All this negative coverage and undue notoriety just because he refused to acquit a three-time child killer, Lindsay Clancy, who is now the feminist’s new heroine.
Earlier in the week, Devlin, along with two other female jurors, Roni Carlson (foreperson) and Kellie Farina, sat down for an extended interview with NBC10 Boston with another feminist sycophant and so-called courtroom journalist, Sue O’Connell. Predictably, the jurors looked and sounded just as you probably might have imagined. They were all aging, chubby, harpy feminist boomers.
In this interview, Devlin, Carlson, and Farina thought they were demonstrating their magnificent intelligence and indisputable logic, but in reality, their profound ignorance was on display for all to see. They all gushed over Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, claiming he was “compassionate” and “arrogant” in a good way. Roni Carlson, the foreperson, even stated with a blush and fangirl smile plastered across her face that Reddington was “entertaining.” When you think about the three children who were brutally murdered, this comment is truly repulsive. These women all agreed they didn’t like the prosecution team because they felt they “lacked compassion and were cold.” What? The prosecutors were rightly fighting for the true victims in this trial, namely Cora, Dawson, and Callan, not trying to become Lindsay Clancy’s new BFF.
These ridiculous women also admitted that they were using the testimony of nurses on the jury to try to justify their ‘not guilty’ decision. Paula Devlin unknowingly outed them all with this remark: “We went back to the report from South Shore Hospital; we had the toxicology report; we could see exactly the amounts; the nurses in the room spoke to that.” This statement has a major problem. The nurses on the jury were not called as witnesses or experts, and their testimony should not have been considered since their professional credentials and opinions could not be questioned in open court; they were not sworn in, nor could the opposing side cross-examine them.
Then one astounding statement from Kellie Farina was incredibly telling. She said, “But he [the holdout juror] had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” Perhaps these brain-dead women should have focused a little more on that fact as well. If they did, they would have locked Clancy up in record time.
In another interview with CBS, Paula Devlin mentioned the aesthetic in the Clancy house. She said, Everywhere you looked, there was just love. There was a big sign that said ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ There wasn’t anything that said she [Clancy] wasn’t that.” So by that logic, if you have some sappy signs hung in your house, you’re not guilty of a triple murder? And it certainly wasn’t a wonderful life for those three poor kids. They were snuffed out before they really had a chance to live.
If these examples are not enough to make one doubt the wisdom of a jury of your peers, a beta male juror named Nick Dargie also had an interview with ABC News last week. He was particularly outraged that the holdout juror took an exercise band Clancy had used to strangle one of her children and wrapped it around a water bottle. Dargie said, “I was just so shocked that he did that. It didn’t make any sense to me. We’re not here to play detective – it’s not a game of Clue. This is serious.” Newsflash, Nick Dargie, if it is highly offensive to “strangle” a water bottle, why didn’t you and the other ten jurors find it even more offensive to do this to three innocent young children? It seems they were more upset with the holdout juror for demonstrating the way Clancy killed her children than the murders themselves.
Another young female juror who chose to remain anonymous said she had originally thought Clancy was guilty, but changed her vote to not guilty so Clancy could “get the help she needed,” as this was a way to “find justice for the kids.” This amounts to juror misconduct, as her mental gymnastics effectively amount to sentencing Clancy, which is the sole purview of the judge in this trial. The jury was to examine only the facts and determine whether Clancy knew what she was doing was wrong. This juror offered her personal opinion on where Clancy should be sent after the trial, which was never her decision to make. And how is letting Clancy off the hook finding justice for her children?
These misguided jurors are now being paraded all over the media, proving by their own statements that they were the real ones who did not follow the judge’s orders and instructions. All the while, the only juror who was brave enough to stand up for three murdered children is being castigated, dragged through the mud, and has now become the villain in this whole tragedy. Does he have a few skeletons in his closet? Maybe. But I’ll tell you what he did not do.
The lone juror did not strangle three beautiful children with his bare hands, but he knows when he sees cold-blooded murder. For standing up to the feminist mob, he deserves high praise.