These juror interviews are extraordinary. They are admitting openly that they disregarded the law entirely for the sake of letting Clancy off the hook. There’s no other way to read it.

One juror says she originally wanted to vote guilty but changed her mind so that “Lindsay could get the help she needs.” That is a clear violation of the law. They were supposed to make a determination solely about guilt or innocence. They were not there to make sure anyone “gets help.”

Another juror says she voted not guilty because the prosecution never produced “character witnesses” proving Clancy was a “bad mother.” The problem is that A) killing your children IS definitive evidence that you’re a bad mother, and B) the prosecution would not have been allowed to call those kinds of witnesses. A witness solely testifying that Clancy was a bad mother would have been purely prejudicial. So this juror acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide evidence that they weren’t allowed to provide and which would have been irrelevant anyway. Extraordinary. This same juror even admitted that it was a “fact” that Clancy “viciously killed her children.” The word vicious literally means “done maliciously and with intent.” So if that’s a fact then they were obligated to vote guilty. But they didn’t.

Meanwhile another juror swooned over the defense attorney’s “entertaining” demeanor. And another one said that all of the facts of the case — “everything,” her words — “proved” that Clancy “loved her children.” Apparently strangling your children to death, in this juror’s mind, does not at all call your love for them into question.

Just a collection of the most morally obtuse idiots ever assembled. Amazing.

9:09 PM · Sep 8, 2026

·

984.6K

Views

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124305)

Herrscher des Vaterlands

Heil Kaiser dir

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124317)

Also jurors absolutely can consider her going to a mental hospital as part of their verdict. Just like some random guy can decide he thinks she's guilty because the crimes were horrific. The jury can consider lots of aspects of the trial in their verdict.

The evidence clearly showed she was a nice normal person and loving mother and wife who snapped one day out of nowhere. It's up for the jury to decide whether she became a criminal on that day or whether she was too insane to appreciate her actions. You can debate all day about that. But that's for a jury to decide what they believe and don't believe. The evidence however is pretty clear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124315)

No, character witness testimony that someone acted in line wkth the crime, such as someone that killed her kids was a bad mother, is generally prohibited.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124328)

If Matt Walsh thinks you need a witness to take the stand to say killing your kids is evil and ipso facto the defendant is a monster to prove she was a shitty person it just furthers my theory that Walsh has no idea how criminal procedure works.

By contrast in the Donna Adelson trial there were a lot of character witnesses and evidence that went to the fact she was controlling and manipulative. You can testify towards character absolutely just not in the way he thinks you ought to which is insane because if that testimony was allowed trials would just be people defaming each other by conjecture. He's essentially saying it ought to be a rap battle of diss tracks. Which is incredibly stupid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124356)

Also I don't even know what this means:

"You cannot testify as to your opinion on something like that, true. But you can call character witnesses who knew her. The state did just that. They tried to find someone who knew her to say something bad about her"

So you now agree that they can't testify that she's a bad mother but you're still criticizing they didn't present that testimony? Wtf?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124379)

You can as a prosecutor present a witness on the stand and ask them about their direct experiences with the defendant.

How does testimony about character come out in the trial if no one can talk about what kind of person she was at any point? Hmm? Is it a rule you can only say positive things? Her babysitter said she loved Lindsay and that she was a good mother. How is this even LEGAL? How is this possible?!!?!

It's almost like witnesses are allowed to give their opinions of a defendant. Matt Walsh is pissed off that everyone liked her. Lots of trials have witnesses who give a negative opinion about the defendant's character. That's an incontrovertible fact of reality, sorry fag.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901844&forum_id=2�id.#50124388)