A Lot Of People Should Go To Prison For Doxxing Lindsay Clancy’s Black Juror

We have never seen anything like what’s happening in Massachusetts right now following the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy triple-murder case.

Whatever you think of Lindsay Clancy — maybe you don’t care about the case at all — there’s no getting around the fact that this has become a debacle of national significance. And unless people go to prison for what’s happened here, our judicial system is done — at least in Left-wing states like Massachusetts. They are legalizing murder, particularly the murder of children and anyone else they find inconvenient. 

If you think that’s an overstatement, here’s the undisputed sequence of events. A man was conscripted into jury duty by the government. He performed his civic duty and ultimately followed his conscience, refusing to acquit a woman who confessed to systematically executing her three children after first sending her husband away on an errand so that the children would be defenseless. This juror listened to all the testimony and apparently concluded that these horrific, premeditated murders are incompatible with the idea that Lindsay Clancy somehow couldn’t control her actions or understand what she was doing. 

WATCH the latest trailer for The Daily Wire’s new film “Run Hide Fight: Infidels”

Even after the 11 other jurors banded together and tried to vote him off the island — on the absurd theory that he “wasn’t following the law” because he disagreed with them — the lone holdout didn’t change his position. He did precisely what jurors are supposed to do — and indeed, what jurors must do, if we’re going to have a functioning legal system. He ignored the mob and reached his own conclusion, which was obviously also the correct one.

In response, rather than accept the fact that he wasn’t able to convince the other 11 jurors to acquit an unrepentant child killer, Clancy’s defense attorney immediately launched a public smear campaign against the juror. He went in front of television cameras — and an appeals court — and claimed that the juror was somehow prejudiced against disabled people solely because he didn’t buy the manufactured insanity defense. Soon afterwards, several other jurors joined the smear campaign. Then the media. Even the defense attorney’s wife got involved. 

Now, as if all of that was not enough, they’re doxxing the man, digging into his past, contacting his family, and showing up at his house. This is NBC Boston:

Dystopian does not begin to describe this. They’re not revealing the juror by name, but they’ve provided enough information that he’s already been identified all over the internet. 

We need to be clear about this: They’re targeting the man for two reasons. First, they want to punish him for refusing to go with their program. And secondly, they’re trying to pollute any future jury pool by making it clear that anyone who votes to convict Clancy will have their life destroyed. 

It’s truly one of the most outrageously evil things we’ve ever seen from the Left, and that’s saying something. It’s a direct assault on the integrity of our justice system. They are burning down every boundary and standard in their path. And doing it all for the sake of a child-murdering psychopath. It’s unfathomable.

It’s also criminal. Massachusetts law makes it a felony offense to retaliate against any juror who participates in a trial. Intimidation and harassment are explicitly outlawed. Here’s the actual law:

”Harass” [means] to engage in an act directed at a specific person or group of persons that seriously alarms or annoys such person or group of persons and would cause a reasonable person or group of persons to suffer substantial emotional distress. …  Whoever willfully, either directly or indirectly …  misleads, intimidates or harasses another person who is a … judge, juror … or punishes, harms, or otherwise retaliates against any such person described in this section … shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years. … If the proceeding in which the misconduct is directed at is the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable by life imprisonment, such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years.

This should be a 20-year prison sentence for everyone who has played a role in doxxing this juror and harassing him because of his participation in this trial. This was a coordinated hit job starting with the media campaign following the mistrial. Piece by piece, mostly through interviews with the jurors, the corporate press began revealing more and more information about the juror’s identity — which led to this extraordinary moment on CBS, when Gayle King went slack-jawed at the revelation that the lone holdout is black. 

Watch: 

Gayle King is visibly shocked to find out that the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial was a black man.

The man was the only black person on the jury.

“Woah. I have to sit with that for a second.” https://t.co/bt5JuliSQ1

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 11, 2026

If the implications for this country were not so obvious, this would be genuinely hilarious. You couldn’t script this any better. The other jurors have spent all week calling the lone male holdout an arrogant, uncooperative moron who didn’t understand the law or follow the rules. They even reported him to the judge in an attempt to silence him. 

The defense attorney filed a motion accusing him of bigotry. Now we come to find out they were talking about the only black guy in the room this whole time. Leftists have accidentally sided with 11 white bullies against a black man who stood up to them. This is precisely the kind of scenario that the Left has fantasized about for years — and now it finally happens, but they accidentally sided with the white people. Phenomenal. Just an absolutely amazing twist.

Gayle King said she would need a few minutes to process that information, for obvious reasons. In any other context, when a roomful of white people are berating a black guy, Gayle King would be wailing about white supremacy and white privilege. But in this case, the oppression hierarchy gets a little complicated. 

They have to revert to the Clarence Thomas playbook and say that it doesn’t actually matter that this guy is black because he doesn’t agree with leftist orthodoxy — namely, that women should be able to kill their children whenever they want. Whenever a black guy is to the right of Rachel Maddow, in every single case, leftists have to find some way to disavow him. And sometimes — as we saw in this interview — you can see the mental gymnastics playing out live on television. The gears are visibly turning.

They were turning on TikTok, too. 

Watch:

Lindsay Clancy fan discovering that the lone juror is black might be the greatest video in history https://t.co/jIAjIvMcU5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 11, 2026

Yes, she did just describe herself as a “non-practicing white.” She slides it in there like we’re all supposed to be familiar with the term. But, speaking for myself, I was not familiar with it. And I’m pretty upset that I wasn’t familiar with it. My deep regret from “Am I Racist” is that I hadn’t seen this clip before we started filming. We could have had so much fun with this “non-practicing white” idea. 

At least this non-practicing white is wrestling with the issue. She says the juror’s blackness “changes the landscape of the conversation.” Which is a phrase somehow even cringier than “non-practicing white.” This is perhaps the worst thing about these leftist white women. They speak in a way that can barely be described as human. At this point, ChatGPT sounds significantly more human than the average leftist white woman. ChatGPT can pass the Turing Test. But I’m not sure that lady can. 

Meanwhile, on Reddit, they’re wondering if the lone holdout may have learning disabilities.

They can’t bring themselves to attack a black man directly, so instead, they’ll just imply he’s retarded. Gets the job done. 

But the big question here is: Why exactly are they talking about the juror’s skin color on national television and all over social media? It doesn’t seem like a relevant detail. And then you realize that, during deliberations, they already outed the lone holdout as a male. And because there were only 3 men on the jury, that narrowed things down considerably. 

Now they’re advertising the fact that the lone holdout was black, which eliminates all doubt as to his identity. If this juror told any friends, family, or colleagues that he’s on this jury — and he obviously has because people can’t just disappear for 7 weeks without any explanation — then his identity is compromised. And sure enough, his alleged name and photo were published.

To be clear, under Massachusetts law, yes, the identities of jurors eventually become public. That’s not the issue. The issue is that, in this context, the identity of the juror has been disclosed along with his deliberations and how he voted in the jury room. 

Indeed, the point of these revelations was to lay the groundwork for even more doxxing. Here’s reporting from a woman named Sue O’Connell, a creature who calls herself a journalist. She’s employed by the NBC affiliate in Boston. This was the moment when the media formally decided to personally go to war against this juror and against the jury system itself. This is where they provided enough information for anyone to identify this particular individual. Again, that’s exactly what happened after this reporting aired. 

Watch: 

A local news station is investigating a black male juror because he didn’t vote the way they wanted!

How is this legal, why would anyone want to participate in our judicial process if legacy news outlets are going to try and destroy their lives it they don’t like the outcome https://t.co/6gjWxpoZC4

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) September 12, 2026

There’s no reason she shouldn’t be in handcuffs after this. We just went through the law. If you’re the juror, this kind of “reporting” would obviously cause emotional distress. And it’s obviously intended to punish him for defying the Leftist women of Massachusetts. So she belongs in prison. Raid the studio. Perp walk this despicable freak.

Just take a step back for a second and think about what’s happening here. You have to consider the full context. They’re flat-out doxxing an anonymous juror because he didn’t acquit a triple murderer. They’re digging up old allegations and his unpaid rent to destroy him because he doesn’t support child murder. 

These people are evil beasts. Demons from hell. And then she ends the video with a desperate plea for people to follow her on social media so they can hear even more slander about men who bravely defy the deranged, sociopathic feminists who now run our society.

This woman in particular — Sue at NBC Boston — is right out of central casting. She’s going to speak to the manager about this hung jury. This is a woman who belongs in some HR Department mass-firing all the white men because they didn’t genuflect in front of the Obama statue in the lobby. The fact that she’s employed by a media organization in any capacity is utterly shameful.

The speculation that he “lied to get on the jury” is total nonsense on its face. For one thing, people don’t lie to get on juries. That’s not how it works in reality. It’s like saying someone lied on their taxes so they could pay more. People lie to pay less in taxes, not more. And they lie to get off of juries, not on them. Massachusetts pays something like $50 as a stipend for jury duty. Nobody’s lying and giving up weeks of their life for that. 

Trying to get on a jury is exceptionally rare because there is basically nothing to be gained from it. It only happens in the case of activists trying to get onto a high-profile case like Chauvin, for example. There is zero indication that this guy was some kind of activist. Nor is there any proof he lied on the jury form. There is absolutely no information that points in that direction at all. This guy simply accepted the civic duty he was forcibly conscripted into. 

More importantly, none of these alleged offenses, which these vultures have dug up under the guise of “journalism,” would even disqualify him from serving on a jury in the first place. They quote some “NBC legal analyst” saying that it would be “hard to imagine” how the juror would be allowed on the panel. But it’s actually not that difficult to imagine. Massachusetts law doesn’t bar people from jury duty unless they’ve been convicted of a felony within the last 7 years, are currently facing felony charges, or are currently incarcerated. That’s it. 

It’s true that if the prosecution or the defense chooses to get rid of a juror because he was accused of a crime in the past, then they’re generally entitled to do that. But there’s no reason for them to do that in this case. First of all, they’d immediately get accused of racism for expelling the lone black juror from the panel. All of these feminist harpies would be outraged. There would be lawsuits and 20 different news cycles about it. Secondly, an arrest record is more likely to make a juror biased in favor of the defense, not against them. Thirdly, the allegation of domestic violence was never proven in a court of law. The charges were dismissed. And there’s reason to doubt that they’d hold up in court.

Why would the woman be worried about losing custody of her daughter? If she’s testifying accurately about domestic violence she endured, why would a judge take her daughter away from her? That’s an obvious issue that deserves some follow-up. But NBC never bothered to look into it. Were her allegations true? Was she worried something might surface during the proceedings that revealed that, in fact, she was lying to get custody? We have no idea. NBC doesn’t care. This is drive-by character assassination on the juror, so they’re not asking questions.

On top of that, we’re later told that there’s also a “restraining order” against the juror. But a restraining order does not require proof of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply means that a judge has decided that it’s “more likely than not” that a restraining order is appropriate. The other allegations are just personal attacks from anonymous sources. 

They also spoke to his 9th-grade history teacher who said he only got a C minus in the class. Oh, and he’s a lousy tipper too, according to multiple local Uber drivers who spoke to NBC Boston on the condition of anonymity. 

They’re presenting this information breathlessly, as if it’s earth-shattering information. They’re digging through this random juror’s life in a manic frenzy simply because he voted against child murder. Think of how bloodthirsty and sinister these people are. They have no conception of how they’re coming across to sane people.

Even if we assume that all of these allegations are true, none of them matter. If anything, again, a juror with an alleged history of domestic violence should be all the more sympathetic to Clancy. Maybe that’s why Clancy’s lawyer left him on the panel. And yet somehow, despite his alleged criminal history, he was the only one with the moral clarity to find her guilty.

For many women — including the wife of the defense lawyer, Deb Reddington — this simply cannot stand. Here’s a post from Reddington on X.

“SHOCKED! Holdout juror is a criminal and a squatter?!” Actually, no, he’s not a criminal, and it’s not clear whether he’s squatting. Again, this woman belongs in prison. You don’t get to harass and intimidate jurors who don’t buy your husband’s retarded insanity defense. Sorry. That’s a felony. See you in 20 years.

What’s really astonishing is that these women are really bouncing right from defending a woman who murdered all of her children to pretending to be horrified by allegations of domestic violence. They’re excusing the strangulation murder of three children while trying to make a scandal out of vague “domestic violence allegations” at the exact same time. 

Even if this guy did beat his wife or whatever — and, again, there’s no evidence of that, and no conviction — but if he did, maybe he was depressed. Maybe he was hormonal. Maybe he was an otherwise loving husband who was having a really hard time and feeling very sad. Maybe he heard voices. Shouldn’t Lindsay Clancy fans be lining up to defend this poor man? If they can find a way to excuse the brutal killing of three children, you’d think it would be quite easy to excuse the alleged non-lethal abuse of one family member. But that would require some measure of integrity and consistency, which these people lack. There isn’t a shred of integrity or decency in any of them. 

For good measure, here’s Sue during the Karen Read trial, going on and on about how juries are sacrosanct and how no one should ever intimidate them.

Watch:

@NBC10Boston @SueOC_NBCBoston DO you even remember saying this ??? AND it’s quite funny how you only said it because we showed up !!! ???? #justiceforJohnOkeefe https://t.co/Xa53el9Tu4

— City_Girl_Smitty☘️ (@Smitty321faith) September 12, 2026

She still believes all of this — as long as you vote the way she wants you to vote. If you defy these people, they’ll destroy you. That’s why no media outlet is harassing any of the jurors who voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy. Do any of them have an arrest record? Have any of them ever been late on their rent? 

None of these journalists have looked into any of that. Which really gives the game away, if you had any doubts about the game to begin with. They can’t claim that they’re just doing their journalistic due diligence by digging into this guy’s past. If that’s all they were doing, they would have dug into the past of every member of the jury. But they didn’t. They only targeted this guy. They’re solely interested in punishing the lone holdout because he opposed the feminist fantasy that women should be allowed to execute their own children.

Before we get back to NBC’s reporting — which gets worse the more you watch it — we need to spend some time looking at the more recent interviews from the jurors. Last week, we talked about the females on the jury who had gone public and completely humiliated themselves in the process. They were obviously infatuated with the defense attorney. They admitted that they tried to use improper evidence (namely, the alleged expertise of the nurses on the jury) to sway the final verdict. And one of the women admitted that she only voted to acquit because she thought Clancy wouldn’t get enough “help” in prison. 

But the jurors continued to give interviews. They can’t keep their mouths shut. They’re simply too in love with the spotlight. And the more they’ve been talking, the more they incriminate themselves. It’s incredible because they have a sympathetic interviewer and the lone holdout isn’t even there to defend himself. But despite this setup, the jurors are still — somehow — exposing themselves as complete and total morons. 

Watch:

BREAKING: Lady juror says that Lindsay Clancy was a good and loving mother because she had a big sign that said “It’s a Wonderful Life” hanging in her house https://t.co/xdSWK6tnY1

— Douglass Mackey (@douglassmackey) September 12, 2026

That woman has done something like ten thousand interviews, by my count. She is just basking in the spotlight like some kind of lizard on a rock in the desert. This is a woman who has clearly been starved for attention her entire life. But she never did anything noteworthy or accomplished anything of significance, and she has nothing interesting to say because she’s a bland, dull-witted nobody. Now, finally, in her twilight years, she has stumbled into something that is bringing her attention, and she’s guzzling it down like a beer bong. 

You just have to stand in awe listening to her. Lindsay Clancy had a sign saying “It’s a wonderful life” in her house. Therefore, she couldn’t possibly be guilty of murder. I’m not overstating it. That’s what she’s saying. It’s impeccable logic. Never before in human history has someone purchased a trite or virtue-signaling household ornament and then turned out to be a horrible person. That would be unthinkable. 

She’s basically saying that, if you have a “Live Laugh Love” doormat, or a yard sign that says “Love is Love,” or anything like that, then you effectively have a license to kill. The only reason you’d ever murder someone if you have a sign like that is if you suffered from some unspeakable psychosis and you couldn’t control what you’re doing. Wear a T-shirt with a smiley face on it everywhere you go, and you can do whatever you want. Steal. Kill. Jaywalk. Rob a bank. This lady will be there to plead your case. “Your honor, yes, he blew up a school bus, but look at that fun smiley face on his shirt. This is clearly a wonderful man.”

Except — she undercuts that argument, as insane as it is, in the same breath. She says that some quack doctor gave her the pretext to vote not guilty by throwing around the nonsense term “altruistic filicide.” This juror was obviously going to vote not guilty from the beginning, but this is the excuse she landed on. 

The idea is that Lindsay Clancy truly believed she was helping her children by killing them. It’s a clever trick. All you have to do is throw the word “altruistic” in there, mix in some new-age psychobabble, and you’re good. 

The thing is, even if you buy this made-up theory, all that it means is that the jury should have voted to convict Clancy of murder. The whole point of the “insanity defense” in this case is that Clancy supposedly heard some all-powerful voice that told her to murder her kids. She was suffering from postpartum “psychosis” and lost her mind — that was the central claim. This voice, strangely enough, only appeared once in her life for this purpose and Clancy only began talking about this voice after she spoke to her lawyer. Somehow, Clancy simply couldn’t tell the voice “no.” She was obligated to kill her children and follow the instructions from the voice in her head.

The “altruistic filicide” theory, on its own terms, completely undermines this defense. “Altruistic filicide” — which, again, is a fake term, but we’ll just use their definition for a moment — does not mean you’re psychotic. It means you have concluded that you want to deliberately murder your children and you believe that it is for their benefit. You’re doing something you know is forbidden, criminal, and wrong, but in your mind, it’s for the best. 

This is called rationalization. Plenty of murderers do it. In fact, the vast majority of all criminals, in one way or another, believe that they’re justified. To give just one example, serial killers have executed homeless vagrants and prostitutes — not because they’re psychotic, but because they think it’s ultimately for the best for society. This behavior is not consistent with “insanity” to the extent “insanity” can be defined at all. It’s consistent with being evil. Whether they think they’re being “altruistic” or not, it doesn’t matter. So even if we take the jury’s reasoning seriously, it means Lindsay Clancy deserves the electric chair. Or, if it makes them feel better, we can send Clancy to the “altruistic electric chair.” 

It cannot be emphasized enough just how disastrous this “altruistic filicide” claim is from this juror. She has admitted, clear as day, that she thinks Clancy was acting deliberately and intentionally when she killed her children. Which means, according to the law, she is guilty. Period. 

None of this occurred to the women in the jury room for the simple reason that they were never actually interested in doing their jobs as jurors. By their own admission, they saw this case as an opportunity to advance the feminist movement. They didn’t care at all about whether Lindsay Clancy was guilty under Massachusetts law. They were never going to convict her. 

Instead, this jury wanted to codify the right of women to execute their children whenever they want. This has been a long time coming for pro-abortion activists, which is why Massachusetts just passed a law allowing abortion up until the moment of birth. In the eyes of feminists, that law doesn’t go nearly far enough. So they wanted to acquit Lindsay Clancy to set a precedent that women are allowed to commit post-birth abortions on demand.

One of these jurors just admitted all of this live on television. Again, these people can’t help themselves. 

Watch:

This says it all. Don’t get murdered in Massachusetts. Don’t put your fate in the hands of progressive women. Holy hell https://t.co/KFiSoHF4W1

— Tom Shattuck (@tomshattuck) September 13, 2026

This is 100% confirmation that the female jurors were not only trying to make a statement, but were also following the trial on social media. The more these hags run their mouths, the worse it gets. 

Again, these were the same jurors who claimed the holdout wasn’t following the law. Meanwhile, they’re admitting that they wanted to score some kind of larger “victory” for women who murder their own children. By the way, if any of these jurors had talked like this during jury selection, they would have been thrown off the panel immediately, without any doubt. They all took an oath to determine the guilt or innocence of Lindsay Clancy in an impartial manner. Now they’re admitting that they lied. But we’re supposed to be concerned about the lone holdout because of an allegation from half a decade ago?

Notice how these women never talk about any of the testimony from the prosecution about how Lindsay Clancy’s defense didn’t even make sense — in part because of all the premeditation and because “the voice in her head” only appeared once at precisely this moment. The female jurors never engage with any of these damning pieces of factual evidence. Instead, the jury was interested in the political and ideological ramifications of a not guilty verdict. 

To the extent that the lone holdout tried to talk about the facts of the case, they reacted with shock and horror. One of the male jurors just came out and said it. There were two male jurors who went along with these women, and one of these male jurors also gave an interview in which he beclowned himself. 

Watch:

This guy is visibly more concerned about the exercise band being used to strangle a water bottle than about the execution of those three children. He’s just absolutely horrified by the sight of that poor water bottle getting strangled. He can’t fathom why the juror would’ve done something like that since this deliberation is supposedly very “serious.” After all, why would anyone want to look at the murder weapon during deliberations? What possible relevance could the murder weapon have?

Here’s a possible explanation. Maybe he wanted to get a sense of how someone might use an exercise band to strangle someone? Maybe he wanted the other jurors to see a sanitized, makeshift demonstration of Lindsay Clancy’s barbarism? Maybe the entire point of the case is that this woman used the exercise bands to commit an unspeakable murder — and it’s pretty revealing if every other juror is horrified at the mere prospect of confronting that fact. 

We see something similar with abortion, where the Left is happy to use euphemisms. They react with shock and horror if you talk about the physical act of abortion — suctioning a baby’s brain out, for example. They’re happy to deal in abstractions on every issue, whether it’s abortion or crime or immigration. But the moment you talk about real life, they shut down. They act like you’re committing a murder right in front of them.

For what it’s worth, one of the female jurors also spoke about the water bottle incident during deliberations. She actually contradicts his version of events, while also making it clear that he was indeed traumatized by the water bottle getting strangled. 

Watch:

After a fellow juror said the holdout juror’s actions during deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial shocked him, another jury member, Paula Devlin, told Shanelle Kaul that the person did wrap an exercise band around a water bottle and “somebody else got up to help.” “I think it was just one of those reaction moments,” she said.

“We all had different pieces of evidence that we needed to see.”

— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 12, 2026

Now we learn that another juror participated in this infamous, R-rated water bottle demonstration. But they later apologized to Nick (the male juror from the other interview) for the trauma he somehow endured in the process. Yes, they’re apologizing that the lone holdout used the exercise band on the water bottle apparently because they don’t want to be reminded (in any way) of what Lindsay Clancy actually did. 

These jurors would rather talk about women’s rights and “altruistic filicide” than the actual facts of the case. We’re also told the exercise band “didn’t work” on the water bottle — which I guess means the water bottle survived. Who knows. It’s an absolute clown show.

As for the reason these jurors banded together to complain to the judge? According to one of the jurors, it was because the lone holdout couldn’t identify any testimony to support his reasoning. 

So first off, he doesn’t have to point to any specific testimony that he found compelling. That’s not a requirement. He doesn’t have to participate in an inquisition. There were multiple witnesses, all of them highly credentialed, who testified that Lindsay Clancy’s alleged psychosis didn’t seem plausible based, in particular, on how the random “voice in her head” seemed to arrive at an awfully convenient time. 

The question for this juror is: Why did you disregard that testimony? Why did you need the lone holdout to spell it out for you? Is it possible he felt that you were all a bunch of fame-seeking, ideologically motivated demons who were hell-bent on acquitting a child killer? Is it possible he correctly determined that you care more about a water bottle than the lives of three children? If so, that’s a pretty good reason for him to scroll on his phone, instead of “engaging” with you.

Even when the other jurors actually did look at physical evidence, they somehow managed to completely miss the point. 

Watch:

“It was dull.”

Paula Devlin, a member of the jury in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial, told CBS News’ Shanelle Kaul that the knife that was shown as evidence in Lindsay Clancy’s trial “was not sharp.” https://t.co/RogCXGYvjz

— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 13, 2026

I guess the prosecutors were right. She was able to methodically execute her kids, but when it came time to kill herself, she managed to pick an extremely dull knife and cause no meaningful damage to her wrists whatsoever. So here we have a piece of physical evidence that supports the prosecution’s theory of the case, which is that brutally murdering your three children is bad, and Lindsay Clancy was trying to garner sympathy after she did it. 

What did the jurors do with this piece of evidence? Apparently, nothing at all. The dull knife wasn’t anywhere near as compelling as a random shrink talking about “altruistic filicide” and other made-up psychobabble on the stand. So they just forgot about it.

The damage that these jurors — and the media — have done to our legal system is now irreparable. There is no longer any way to assemble a fair jury to re-try Lindsay Clancy. Every juror who’s inclined to convict her will recognize that, if they do so, their lives will be destroyed. Their identity and home address will be blasted all over the Internet, along with anonymous attacks from random people they’ve known throughout their lives. If they’ve ever done anything wrong, or been accused of doing anything wrong, it’ll be on national television. The idea of a fair jury trial — the cornerstone of our legal system — is no longer possible.

Every institution in a worthwhile society — one that cares about the rule of law instead of mob justice — would have done everything in its power to prevent an outcome like this. Instead, the institutions (particularly the corporate press) are fomenting the mob. They’re unleashing the hounds and burning down our system of government on behalf of a child-killer. And in the process, they’re calling her “altruistic” and are demonizing the one man who wanted to punish her for what she did. 

Everyone who sets foot in a Left-wing state — man, woman, or child — should be paying very close attention to this case. These people will kill you without remorse. Then they’ll eagerly acquit your murderers based on the thinnest pretext from a fake doctor. 

They’ll tell themselves that they’re good people and everyone else is backwards and unenlightened. But the truth is, these people are barbarians who care more about a water bottle than the life of a child (or three children).  

They are hopelessly broken and sinister. And until these people are removed from power — until they lose the ability to vote, and until they’re thrown in prison for the crimes they’ve committed — no sane person should go anywhere near them. 

We have no choice but to watch from afar as they destroy not only themselves, but the legal system that their ancestors — American men — built before them, and which they clearly cannot hope to even appreciate, much less maintain.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org