Posted On: Wednesday - September 9th 2026 7:23PM MST
In Topics: Female Stupidity Legal Stupidity
As a nation, we ain't livin' long like this...
It wasn't Peak Stupidity's intention to even mention the Lindsey Clancy child-killer Mom infotainment. I'm pretty sure you all could get the latest on the story elsewhere. It's a sick story. Many such cases. What I'm catching up on is what seems to be a combination of the question of sanity of the defendant and the murder trial at one time. Isn't there normally a hearing to determine if a defendant is sane enough to stand trial?
We don't pretend to be Legal Eagles here, so what I've gathered is that the deliberations that have resulted in a 2nd mistrial up in Massachusetts are on the verdict itself, with either an outcome of guilty or innocent by reason of insanity. Is that it? There's inherent stupidity there anyway, as sane or insane, if you're found guilty I see no reason the verdict should be any different. In case you've followed the case even less than I have, Mrs. Clark confessed to having strangled her 3 kids, methodically too.
That there are being bat-shit crazy people like this woman on trial is one thing, but that juries too are full of clueless emotional women is another. There were 9 women out of the 12, all who wanted to see this child murderer be set free, cause, feeeelings, both theirs and that of the woman who killed all of a man's (yes, he's a victim too) family other than her crazy self.
I'm glad to hear there was one actual man on the jury, doing a man's job. He stood firm rather than fit in with the 11 jurors who would not provide justice. The rest of the jurors are angry at him. So be it. One of them said he "had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children." No, he couldn't get "off" that. He shouldn't. Lately, the story is of one of the jurors (aren't they supposed to keep their mouths closed?) ... of the women jurors (oh, yeah) has said that she was ready to find Lindsey Clancy guilty, but then wanted to fit in with the rest. Additionally, she figured that the defendant wouldn't get such good help with her "problem" in jail.
Ha, I could say the same for the worst of the murdering, torturing and raping, MS-13 gang members. They commit some horrific crimes, but the problem is, if you put them in prison for that, it won't help them any. We don't want to help them. We don't want to help Lindsey Clancy. The time for that passed when she murdered her 3 children in cold blood.
That was just a rant and nothing you can't find elsewhere or in your own mind. My point today about this story is this: It's nothing too new to me, but for some of the billions (probably) of people who've followed this story, they've got to start wondering if women should be allowed on juries. It wasn't the case in the past that they were. Though they had served on them before, it wasn't until 1941 that Vermont officially made it policy that they could. In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Louisiana that women couldn't be treated differently in the jury selection process.
The right to vote is one thing. This right, guaranteed to women in the US since the odious Amendment XIX* was ratified 126 years back, had long-term consequences. With women on juries, however, the consequences are acute. If you find yourself depending on women on a jury deciding your guilt or innocence based on emotion, it will be a terrible feeling. I don't kid that your fate may very well depend on the phase of the moon. We can't have this. That's not justice. The Matriarchy can't serve justice.
The crowd of women online and in person supporting Lindsey Clancy, 3-time child murderer is another problem.
Besides keeping women off juries, what else did they do in the past to keep this problem at bay? Does Massachusetts really need to resort to this again?
As a parting thought, it seems like I haven't heard that "But think of the children!" cry so much anymore. Definitely those 9 women jurors in Massachusetts don't think that way.
* See also Part 2 and Part 3.
Comments: