Good morning, everyone.
So, I might have brought this up in earlier editions, but one of my favorite bits about my family history is that I’m related to someone who ran the very first witch trials … in a bar.
Lieutenant Nathaniel Ingersoll was quite the figure—owned businesses, was involved in the militia, and led a church. Out of the twenty women he either accused or testified against, eight ended up being hanged.
Anyway, by the way, did you catch…
THREE CRONES ON TV
There are The Fates, The Grey Sisters, The Norns, and the infamous Weird Sisters from Shakespeare. Then we’ve got three rather eccentric women who showed up on local television last night to air their grievances about the lone juror who wouldn’t go along with acquitting Lindsay Clancy.
The trio, who humorously showed up on NBC and CBS Boston, didn’t hide their disdain for the prosecution and the single male juror who wasn’t swayed by their arguments.
They criticized the prosecution for supposedly lacking “compassion” and claimed there was no definitive evidence—no “smoking gun”—to establish Clancy’s guilt. They labeled the reluctant juror as “very arrogant” for not taking the “nurses’” opinions seriously.
And yes, there were nurses present. Not to veer off too much, but some people are saying that relying on outside “expertise” could lead to a mistrial. Plus, just to throw this out there: about one-third of nurses may deal with some form of mental health issues themselves!
Moving on, in what I’d call the most unsettling clip, the three of them absolutely tore into the holdout juror.
Here’s a brief transcript, emphasis mine (I’m leaving out juror names, but they’re easy enough to find):
Juror 1:
He expressed reasonable doubt. He openly admitted it after we reviewed that interview video. I think that was the moment. He did say he had reasonable doubt, and I was so thrilled to start filling out the forms. There were three forms to handle, and I began to fill them in. I signed each one, only for him to say, “But I still can’t say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Juror 2:
He came across as very arrogant. He really ignored everything anyone said. He asked a question about the medications, and we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital. The toxicology report was available for review. The nurses discussed it with us. That was his inquiry. And he outright dismissed whatever information they provided.
Juror 3:
I’m not exactly sure “rogue” is quite the right descriptor. But during our frustrating hours, all of us would get up and walk around, simply because we couldn’t sit still. He, I think, got up to check the exhibits cart once, briefly, then returned to his seat. He avoided engaging with us and wouldn’t even try to comprehend.
We read him the definition of reasonable doubt several times from Judge Sullivan’s instruction. He even suggested at one point, “Why don’t we ask the judge to come in and read it again?” And we were like, “No, we have it right here in front of us. That’s unnecessary.” We highlighted it — defining reasonable doubt. Yet he struggled to let go of the belief that Lindsay had viciously killed her children.
Honestly, I had to double-check when I read that last part. He couldn’t move past “the idea that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Well, no surprise there, huh?
(By the way, I’m not sure what the third one was on, but her speech was slurred enough to raise some eyebrows.)
Then there’s the now-famous “no smoking gun” comment from a fourth juror who (smartly) chose to remain unnamed.
She also recounted how she felt pressured into going for an acquittal despite her initial convictions.
Here’s a transcript:
Juror:
The majority from either side had their positions pretty firmly established from the get-go. This particular juror wasn’t the only one who struggled to see things from another perspective. I’m somewhat inclined to defend that juror. There were some strong personalities in that room. Ultimately, it came down to a refusal to reconsider their own positions. Even after that explosive charge, they couldn’t self-reflect and think, ‘Am I overlooking something? Am I not giving this doubt the attention it warrants?’ It felt like the majority was trying to sway that individual from the start.
Reporter:
So just to clarify, what was your perspective from the very beginning? What was your vote?
Juror:
Initially, I believed she was guilty and criminally culpable. And maybe, in some way, I still lean that way. I think this woman was clearly not mentally well. She was enduring a serious mental health crisis. It really felt like she was in such a dark place that her options dwindled, and this was what she saw as a solution.
Quite the twist.
… just think about how the meaning of “crone” has evolved. From “ugly, old, or unpleasant” to being regarded as “wise and respected post-menopausal woman.”
MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES
Leftist Professor Doxxes ICE Agent, Urges Crowd To ‘F*ck Him Up’
This is who is shaping future generations.
ROOKE: Trump Admin’s Boastful Post Shows We’re Leaving Half Of Country Behind
What’s going on with all the men?
Trump Honors ‘The Man In The Red Bandana’ With Medal Of Freedom
A heartwarming moment.
