Megyn Kelly Points Out the KEY Issue with the Lindsay Clancy Female Jurors Speaking Out Now

The jurors, they also were very critical of the prosecution. And you gotta hear why, all right? It wasn't like they didn't persuade me that she knew what she was doing. It wasn't that, you'll hear what it was. Let's listen to a few soundbites here. I just found it to be harsh, Sue. Very, very harsh. We weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she's admitting that. We're trying to figure out, did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much, and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped. Okay, that snapped doesn't advance the discussion at all. That was the foreperson, Ronnie Carlson. And then back to Kelly Farina, our favorite, who had this to say about the prosecution. The fact that they had no character witnesses in regard to Lindsay of being a bad mother. I mean, right out of the gate, it's like, you're presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody's presenting for the prosecution, a woman and a mother of three children. So I found it to be biased right out of the gate. I found them also to be kind of unprofessional and just without a heart. And for me, that right away, I was like, okay, where is this going? Right from statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now, which I guess is expected of a prosecution. But I thought it was very cold. My God. I mean, you failed, prosecution. You failed on jury selection. That's what we've seen here. You utterly, forget that nonsense about no compassion and no heart. The prosecutor Sprague had compassion for the babies who were murdered. She had a lot of compassion for the three children and was there to represent them. She was not supposed to be Oprah Winfrey, you ******* idiots. They were biased because they didn't call character witnesses to tell us that Lindsay Clancy is a bad mom. I think they thought the corpses of her children would be proof enough. You idiot. This is unbelievable. The prosecution failed so terribly on jury instruction. That's where this case was clearly lost. Clearly lost. I mean, I don't know how these people made it on. There were questions. A lot of us had questions about the fact that there were nine women on the jury. I mean, the women, they tend to be tender hearts. Their empathy gets exploited their entire lives so that it stays super alive and they can be super woke when they grow into full grown women. Except when it comes to the unborn, you're not allowed to have any empathy for them. And as it turns out in Massachusetts for the born but not yet adult children. This is the most absurd. She was unprofessional and biased because she didn't call a character witness telling everybody that Lindsay Clancy was a bad mom. I mean, you figure that out. I can't figure it out. She didn't have compassion for Lindsay Clancy, the murderer who she was trying to convince the jury should be locked up behind bars. Sister, this is a McDonald's. What are you talking about? You are not on the set of Oprah. The three jurors who spoke to NBC Boston. You're not gonna be surprised to learn had a much more favorable view. I mean, honestly, I think they had the hots for Lindsay Clancy's defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington. Watch his whole demeanor. Yeah, is was funny. And there was one time, whatever he said, I don't know, but I went. He was entertaining, which was good because we needed some of that in arrogant at the same time. Yes. Like arrogant and entertaining. He would go back and forth between that. Yeah, but compassionate. Yes. With his arrogance, his compassion towards Lindsay was amazing, entertaining. That's his job. Sure. And the one woman, the long blonde hair says and an arrogant, arrogant, arrogant through his compassion. What we have a bunch of no nothing's sitting in this jury on this jury. But so compassionate toward Lindsay. I mean, Kevin Reddington played them like a fiddle, like good for him. Total win for him in that way. Just completely had them eating out of his hand. You are so stupid. You don't realize how you've been so manipulated. You're so dumb. You didn't even realize this was all a manipulation of you think about this in 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price at today's prices. Those 33 ounces would be worth about $165,000. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch gold group for thousands of years. Gold has been a store of wealth. And today it's even better. Birch gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8, to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information with an A plus rating with the better business bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Let Birch gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to 9, 8, 9, 8, 9, 8 today. CBS Boston also spoke, this is CBS, that was NBC. CBS also spoke to a juror, juror number five, a female who wanted to remain anonymous, who had a different take on what happened with the holdout juror. Listen. I know the majority of the people on, it doesn't matter what side it was on, was very strong in their like stance and their, their beliefs kind of from the beginning. You know, the standalone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side. So I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions. And, you know, you got through that dynamite charge to be unable to self analyze yourself and be like, okay, am I missing something? Am I failing to acknowledge or give this a weight of something like this doubt weight that it needs? That person, the majority of the room was trying to kind of sway that person from the very beginning. And he wasn't swayable. Tough ----. That's what it means to be on a jury, that he had an inability to move past his convictions. Why should you move past your convictions when you hold a person's freedom in your hands? Isn't that the moment that you really should hold on to your convictions? I mean, this is so absurd. If the shoe were on the other foot, we would see this so clearly. If the holdout had been for a not guilty verdict and everybody else had been for guilty, he should have just moved past his convictions to convict somebody. No, we would all see how absurd that is. Well, the same holds when the shoe was on the other foot. So grow up, this jury need to grow up. And by the way, very interesting there, she talks about his doubt and she just talks about doubt, right? When you hear the other three ninnies, they were over there talking about it was reasonable. He had reasonable doubt and he refused to apply it. Well, that's not what the foreperson, the short haired lady there, said in her juror note to the judge. She didn't say he has reasonable doubt. Even Kevin Reddington didn't say that and he would have said that if he thought it would have helped him in his papers or before the judge. He just said, this holdout juror is saying he has doubt but won't apply the standard of reasonable doubt to it. And now when she sat down with the NBC reporter, she changed it to he had reasonable doubt. Really? You didn't write that in your note. Now you write that because you wanna upend what he did. You wanna challenge him. You wanna say somehow he was so unreasonable. That's not what you wrote. Why didn't you write that? That would actually really gotten people's eyebrows up. The judge probably would have felt an obligation to voir dire the juror, but that's not what you wrote. And juror five there, you just heard her, she referred to the fact that he had doubt. Again, you're allowed to have doubt. The standard is not, must be found guilty beyond any doubt on earth. And therefore, you can hold that. It's beyond any reasonable doubt. So if you have a reasonable doubt, you may not vote to exonerate the person. This guy clearly had a doubt, but he didn't think it rose to the level of a reasonable one and therefore was ready to vote guilty. That's his prerogative. He wanted to find her guilty because while he had some doubt unexplained about some element of the case, and we have no idea whether it was even a material element. He was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew what she was doing. He's entitled to that POV. This post verdict pile on by these hens is just so repugnant. The same juror number five here speaking to CBS also said she originally was ready to vote guilty. So where did you come down from the very beginning? What was your vote? Originally, I felt as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it. And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this was a woman who, you know, she was not mentally healthy. She was someone that was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis. So I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out. And so this was the only option. Okay, so she's allowed to wanna vote guilty, but this other guy is not. She was ready to vote guilty, and so was he. And he held on to that position, but she didn't, and therefore he's bad. He needed to be browbeaten. What she said there tracks with NBC Boston's reporting that four jurors, four, did not want to go for the not guilty by reason of insanity when they began the deliberations before three of them were eventually persuaded to join the majority. But this last juror was not. So you had four who were like, I think she's guilty. I'm not ready to go with the not guilty by reason of insanity. They managed to get three out of the four over to their side, but not the fourth. And now they're just, I guess, gonna spend the next few weeks and months trying to paint him like he was some rogue dude who wouldn't apply the law. By the way, it was very clear, and I said this to you guys last week. What happened was they got the dynamite charge from the judge that basically said, there will never be 12 jurors who know this case better than you, who have more sensitivity toward the facts than you, who could be more fair than you. So please, please, please try to come to a verdict, okay? And I said on the air last week, obviously they took that and they decided we're just gonna turn on the holdout juror and try to find a way to either kick him off or strong arm him into our side. And I said, I believe this argument that he had a doubt, but he's not applying the reasonable doubt standard properly, was just their attempt to browbeat this guy or eject him. And that seems very clear. I mean, you heard in that one woman's soundbite, sure, well, we had the dynamite charge. And so we had to decide what to do. I mean, that's exactly what happened. That's really not what the dynamite charge is supposed to be used for. He wasn't persuaded. You shouldn't be bullied into changing your verdict when you actually don't believe a change of verdict is necessary. Everybody has to live with their conscience. I've served on a jury, I know what I'm talking about. Served on a whole trial for a week. I was hosting America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer at the time, we talked all about it. Juror number five, just like her other fellow three female jurors, had some criticism for the prosecution. Watch this. Just tell me a little more about the evolution for you, cuz I'm interested cuz you mentioned how there were so many strong personalities in there. But then tell me how you changed a little bit. Because at the end of the day, there was so much doubt. The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout that presentation in that case that you could say, yep, 100%, I'm certain she did it or that she didn't do it. There's too much gray area. And eventually, I just felt like the only way to get justice work for Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and Patrick, and her parents, and everyone else that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed. And there's no way she's getting that help 100%. Okay, smoking gun, what? I don't really even know what to say about that. This is why trial lawyers don't like interviewing jurors after the fact, cuz you find out just how clueless they were. They say bizarre things, dumb things. Remember, Iglar was telling us some stories last week. This is why.