"When you're the only sane person, you look like the only insane person."
The sole juror who held out during the Lindsay Clancy trial is being heralded as a hero by many in our society for not allowing the mother who strangled her three children to be found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility (insanity) rather than guilty of murder (first or second degree) or manslaughter.
However, it's pretty clear that he's the villain in the story of anyone who believes in the feminist perspective that a woman can be guilty of nothing and a victim of everything. According to them, Clancy is innocent in every way. The killing of her three children was the result of hormones, a system that failed her, and — for some — she didn't even kill her children. Her husband somehow did it, even though CCTV footage and location tracking showed him nowhere near the house when the children died — and she and her attorneys admit she was the one who killed them.
The opposite opinion of this is that Clancy premeditated the killings, and it's hard to convince anyone who holds this position to switch to the opposing viewpoint. From the descriptions we've heard from other jurors, it sounds like the holdout wasn't willing to get past the "vicious" killing of Clancy's children.
I was reading the update on the other jurors speaking out by my colleague Kyle Becker, who reported that one claims that the holdout had no real logical reason to keep his position and wouldn't be shaken from it. Becker makes an interesting note here:
Let's just point out here the reason why we're not hearing from the male holdout juror. It's because he is likely in hiding in grave fear of being doxxed and subjected to the wrath of the Clancy supporter army.
So, these jurors can claim virtually anything they want to disparage this holdout juror, and we're likely not going to hear any response from him.
This is a key point here, and I think it's worth expounding on what's happening to this man now.
The key focus of the Lindsay Clancy trial is no longer Lindsay Clancy, which was the main goal of the ideologues who wanted Clancy's guilt to be victimhood. The point was always to put the blame on someone or something else. If she can be labeled a victim after this, then the sky's the limit for feminism. There's nothing it can't get away with. All it takes is the proper application of victimhood, and you can literally get away with murder.
One man stood in the way of all that, and now the person on trial is him. The court of public opinion is in session, and sadly for this juror, he's already been found guilty. The sentence is social isolation and character assassination.
This punishment serves two different goals.
For one, this man now gets to live in fear for his life and/or livelihood, including anyone who may be related to him, such as his wife and children. Discovery means incessant intimidation and harassment, and, if possible, actual harm. We've seen this time and again with anyone who tripped up the march of "progressivism." You will be made an example of.
But also, the more this mystery man is demonized with zero ability to fight back, the more the public image of the entire Clancy trial can be shifted into an attack on a poor, troubled woman whose only crime was being a woman in a patriarchal system that doesn't take women's suffering seriously enough, and may even revel in it.
If you can't get over the "vicious" killing of three children by their own mother, then you must be just as shortsighted and obstinate as that unidentified man who is clearly just doing this because he's an irrational misogynist.
See how this works?
The media are doing all they can to drag a man through the mud because if they can successfully implement the lens through which to see him, then Lindsay Clancy is innocent no matter what she's found guilty of, and feminism wins.
Or, at least, that's what I'm pretty sure their goal is based on the pattern.
I truly hope this man is never found, and if he is, then it would behoove everyone to rally around him protectively and defend him with gusto. Our court system isn't a popularity contest, and justice is supposed to be blind. If these insane people successfully out him and make an example of him, I can't help but think it will make many think twice before challenging the mob in the court of law, which was designed to resist mob rule.
