El Oso said:
It's not gossip. It's public records. They show lied on the form. Had he admitted the truth, he would have been struck.
You're right, I haven't seen the other 11, but Boston10 (NBC affiliate) has seen all of them for selected jurors. They're only reporting an issue with this one. And one is enough to have a problem no matter who it is.
El Oso said:
It's not gossip. It's public records. They show lied on the form. Had he admitted the truth, he would have been struck.
You're right, I haven't seen the other 11, but Boston10 (NBC affiliate) has seen all of them for selected jurors. They're only reporting an issue with this one. And one is enough to have a problem no matter who it is.
El Oso said:
I haven't challenged his decision at all. I have challenged his right to be on the jury based on evidence we now have. Evidence that indicates he committed the crime of perjury to be on the case.
Go back through the thread. I predicted a mistrial. I was way off on the jury split though.
El Oso said:
Show me any posts I have made where I condone the people pressuring him. The only thing you may have is the judge rereading the definition of reasonable doubt. I know at least one poster said that was pressure. I don't see that as pressure because all jurors were reminded of the instruction. I watched the rereading. I saw nothing that indicated one person was being persecuted. Outside of that, you will find nothing from me that condones mob behavior in this case.
Yes, if there is a case against him for plagiarism, I would be for charging him with perjury. If he's guilty, Massachusetts calls for a financial penalty of no more than $2,000.
Produce the other jurors forms. If we have his, we definitely have theirs. If they lied, let's get them too.
— Vernon Jones (@VernonForGA) September 12, 2026
Oldbear83 said:
' Show me any posts I have made where I condone the people pressuring him.'
You are the one here who is obsessed with going after this one man. You have shown no interest at all in any of the other jurors, which makes you a hypocrite.
'The only thing you may have is the judge rereading the definition of reasonable doubt. I know at least one poster said that was pressure. I don't see that as pressure because all jurors were reminded of the instruction.'
I notice you have ignored my point about all the juries which voted as they pleased in the past. If anything, your point about the judge suggests he wanted to force the juries to vote according to his control and not their conscience and judgment, to which I suggest you and he are thugs.
'I saw nothing that indicated one person was being persecuted.'
Except that only his application is being attacked as dishonest, and no one else. That media and gossip-mongers have been doxxing the guy and trying to harass him for his time as a juror.
' Outside of that, you will find nothing from me that condones mob behavior in this case.'
Get serious! Every post from you in this thread since the verdict has been that you want the holdout punished and publicly harassed for daring to stand up to the mob. Everything you have posted has been in that vein.
' Produce the other jurors forms. If we have his, we definitely have theirs.'
Nice try, but it's not me who is in favor doxxing jurors or harassing them for their opinion. You may note that while I strongly disagree with the majority of those jurors, I have not been calling them names or demanding bad things happen to them, nor do I try to find reasons to spread gossip about their qualifications.
THAT is all your behavior, sir. You should be ashamed and take some time to think about your ethical standards on this case.
El Oso said:
It's not gossip. It's public records. They show lied on the form. Had he admitted the truth, he would have been struck.
You're right, I haven't seen the other 11, but Boston10 (NBC affiliate) has seen all of them for selected jurors. They're only reporting an issue with this one. And one is enough to have a problem no matter who it is.
Oldbear83 said:El Oso said:
I haven't challenged his decision at all. I have challenged his right to be on the jury based on evidence we now have. Evidence that indicates he committed the crime of perjury to be on the case.
Go back through the thread. I predicted a mistrial. I was way off on the jury split though.
Again, you are obsessing on just one juror, and are apparently fine with him being persecuted for not going along with a mob.
That's hypocrisy, collusion, and extortion you are endorsing, sir.
Harrison Bergeron said:
How would you propose the government prove sanity?
El Oso said:
Show me any posts I have made where I condone the people pressuring him. The only thing you may have is the judge rereading the definition of reasonable doubt. I know at least one poster said that was pressure. I don't see that as pressure because all jurors were reminded of the instruction. I watched the rereading. I saw nothing that indicated one person was being persecuted. Outside of that, you will find nothing from me that condones mob behavior in this case.
Yes, if there is a case against him for plagiarism, I would be for charging him with perjury. If he's guilty, Massachusetts calls for a financial penalty of no more than $2,000.
Produce the other jurors forms. If we have his, we definitely have theirs. If they lied, let's get them too.
El Oso said:Oldbear83 said:
' Show me any posts I have made where I condone the people pressuring him.'
You are the one here who is obsessed with going after this one man. You have shown no interest at all in any of the other jurors, which makes you a hypocrite.
'The only thing you may have is the judge rereading the definition of reasonable doubt. I know at least one poster said that was pressure. I don't see that as pressure because all jurors were reminded of the instruction.'
I notice you have ignored my point about all the juries which voted as they pleased in the past. If anything, your point about the judge suggests he wanted to force the juries to vote according to his control and not their conscience and judgment, to which I suggest you and he are thugs.
'I saw nothing that indicated one person was being persecuted.'
Except that only his application is being attacked as dishonest, and no one else. That media and gossip-mongers have been doxxing the guy and trying to harass him for his time as a juror.
' Outside of that, you will find nothing from me that condones mob behavior in this case.'
Get serious! Every post from you in this thread since the verdict has been that you want the holdout punished and publicly harassed for daring to stand up to the mob. Everything you have posted has been in that vein.
' Produce the other jurors forms. If we have his, we definitely have theirs.'
Nice try, but it's not me who is in favor doxxing jurors or harassing them for their opinion. You may note that while I strongly disagree with the majority of those jurors, I have not been calling them names or demanding bad things happen to them, nor do I try to find reasons to spread gossip about their qualifications.
THAT is all your behavior, sir. You should be ashamed and take some time to think about your ethical standards on this case.
1. I'm not obsessed. I made exactly one post responding to RD2 and adding information we now know about the juror. Every response since has been to a poster challenging my position that this juror broke the law to get on the jury. I'm continuing the conversation. If I'm obsessed, you're obsessed because we seem to be the only two left here.
2. Juries are free to vote as they please. They should not nullify the law, but it happens. I think the OJ jury ignored the evidence. It happens. There's nothing that can really be done about it unless we change the constitution.
3. You're applying my quote about what happened in the courtroom to what's happening now. He was not persecuted by the judge is what I said.
4. Upon further research, we don't know the names of the other 11 jurors. Based on comments the three jurors publicly speaking have made and comments by the defense attorney in court (which he is absolutely allowed to do), it didn't take long for the news to figure out who he had to be. They ran a background check on that name. They found things that indicate he lied on his juror form. They published that information. We know three names because they are talking. Their records came back clean. There are still eight more names to go. They get released late this week. Run their backgrounds. If they lied on the jury form, go get them for prosecution too. They brought this on themselves by lying on a court document. You seem to want criminals punished, so I am a bit flabbergasted your criminal outrage does not apply to this guy.
My ethical standard is this, if someone broke the law and we can prove it, they should be punished.
GrowlTowel said:
Assume that the juror knowingly lied on his basic juror questionnaire, how does his past affect the case or the verdict?
El Oso said:GrowlTowel said:
Assume that the juror knowingly lied on his basic juror questionnaire, how does his past affect the case or the verdict?
It makes him an ineligible juror under the law which means the defendant did not receive a fair trial which is a major violation of her constitutional rights.
You seem to be okay with it because the jury hung. That's only one of three options. What about the other too.
Should a guilty verdict stand? Yes, she could appeal it, but it shouldn't have happened because the juror should not have been on the jury.
Would you be okay with this if the verdict was not guilty? My guess is no, but here you would have no recourse because of double jeopardy.
I am comfortable with none of the outcomes. An ineligible juror ended up on a trial. This should not happen. Defendants have rights, and courts must protect those rights.
historian said:
Clancy juror says she wanted to pardon child killer to make the system "better for other women"
https://notthebee.com/article/clancy-juror-says-she-wanted-to-pardon-child-killer-to-make-the-system-better-for-other-women
This is what happens when people thinks it's ok to kill babies. The scary part is how banal such thinking has become.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20
El Oso said:
That's not how the law works.
Yes. She killed her kids. Nobody is denying that. The issue here is was she insane at the time of the murder due to postpartum psychosis. If the answer is yes, then she is not guilty by reason of insanity. If the answer is no, then she's guilty.
D. C. Bear said:El Oso said:
That's not how the law works.
Yes. She killed her kids. Nobody is denying that. The issue here is was she insane at the time of the murder due to postpartum psychosis. If the answer is yes, then she is not guilty by reason of insanity. If the answer is no, then she's guilty.
Not my wife, anyway.
Poor Mitch. Yikes.
Forest Bueller III said:historian said:
Clancy juror says she wanted to pardon child killer to make the system "better for other women"
https://notthebee.com/article/clancy-juror-says-she-wanted-to-pardon-child-killer-to-make-the-system-better-for-other-women
This is what happens when people thinks it's ok to kill babies. The scary part is how banal such thinking has become.
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20
Yes, I was shocked when I saw that interview. They have lost the natural affection a human is meant to have. They are lovers of self as described in the Bible.
If that was my mother-in-law every visit with them would be fully supervised and there would be no overnight visits.
El Oso said:GrowlTowel said:
Assume that the juror knowingly lied on his basic juror questionnaire, how does his past affect the case or the verdict?
It makes him an ineligible juror under the law which means the defendant did not receive a fair trial which is a major violation of her constitutional rights.
You seem to be okay with it because the jury hung. That's only one of three options. What about the other too.
Should a guilty verdict stand? Yes, she could appeal it, but it shouldn't have happened because the juror should not have been on the jury.
Would you be okay with this if the verdict was not guilty? My guess is no, but here you would have no recourse because of double jeopardy.
I am comfortable with none of the outcomes. An ineligible juror ended up on a trial. This should not happen. Defendants have rights, and courts must protect those rights.
El Oso said:Harrison Bergeron said:
How would you propose the government prove sanity?
Your second and third questions are irrelevant if I can prove the first. It seems pretty easy to me, but I am not a lawyer.
1. Provide proof of premeditation.
2. Provide proof of rational execution of the crime.
3. Provide proof of consciousness of guilt.
4. What are the conclusions of people who interacted with the defendant on a regular basis. This seems to be where the big problem with Clancy is. She was repeatedly seeking mental help. Those who knew her testified she was not sane.
5. Use forensic psychiatrists. Big disagreements between the prosecution experts and the defense experts from what I understand.
6. Use prior bad acts if allowed under the law. There were none to my knowledge.
Of the six, the government did maybe three in this case. That's reasonable doubt is it not?
11 states require the prosecution to do this and all of them have conviction rates against insanity defenses in lock step with the 35 states that do not (four don't allow the defense). I think the Constitution forces the government to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so I don't see the issue with what these 11 states do.
GrowlTowel said:
I appreciate your attempt at the Matlock moment, but let us put an end to it now.
Those questionaries are not public records so to humor you, let us say he did not check a single box (but should have checked the arrested, been charged with a crime, and been served with a court order boxes and provided an explanation). Setting aside that lying requires an intent to deceive, let us assume he knowingly lied on his questionnaire.
Of note, being arrested is not disqualifying. Having an active restraining order is not disqualifying. Finally, lying on the juror questionnaire is not disqualifying.
The best your complaining can support is that the murder's attorneys did not have enough information about the black juror to perform an effective voir dire on him - that is on them. Nothing prohibited her attorneys from questioning him further about his Section 3 responses or non-responses.
Both the defense and the state accepted this slate of jurors after voir dire. Unless there was some objection that was made about this specific juror prior to the start of the trial - the defense waived this "error."
El Oso said:GrowlTowel said:
I appreciate your attempt at the Matlock moment, but let us put an end to it now.
Those questionaries are not public records so to humor you, let us say he did not check a single box (but should have checked the arrested, been charged with a crime, and been served with a court order boxes and provided an explanation). Setting aside that lying requires an intent to deceive, let us assume he knowingly lied on his questionnaire.
Of note, being arrested is not disqualifying. Having an active restraining order is not disqualifying. Finally, lying on the juror questionnaire is not disqualifying.
The best your complaining can support is that the murder's attorneys did not have enough information about the black juror to perform an effective voir dire on him - that is on them. Nothing prohibited her attorneys from questioning him further about his Section 3 responses or non-responses.
Both the defense and the state accepted this slate of jurors after voir dire. Unless there was some objection that was made about this specific juror prior to the start of the trial - the defense waived this "error."
Outside of commercials on CBS, I am not familiar with that show.
You're right we don't know how he answered those questions. The form was not looked at by the news because they cannot see it. They figured out his name and ran a background check on him. All I know is any attorney worth their fee rejects him for cause since he has an active restraining order on him, which means whether he likes it or not, he is engaged in a legal matter.
You are also right that having an active restraining order does not automatically disqualify him, but under Massachusetts law (the part you left out), it does make it possible to challenge a juror for cause. The judge would hear arguments and then decide. So it is possible, one of the sides made an argument to dismiss him for cause and the judge denied it. It's also possible nobody tried to challenge for cause because he misrepresented that information (willfully or not) on his form so nobody knew that challenging for cause was a possibility open to them. Maybe we find out one day.
You're right that based on what we know right know, we can't prove he lied deliberately (if he lied). It might be worth trying to find out though. I imagine since the maximum punishment is $2k, the prosecution probably lets it go, even if they can prove it.
I have difficulty agreeing with the fact the defense waived this error. Voir dire is a fairly quick process. I've been through it about a half dozen times. I distinctly remember the last one each attorney was only given a specific amount of time (90 minutes each) to talk to nearly 100 potential jurors. Attorneys don't have time to do a full investigation on the pool. They also don't know an investigation (or more thorough questioning should be done) if they accept the form on its face. And since it is a sworn document, they may have seen no in that section in question and moved on.
And for this other juror who had a run in with the law (you didn't bring her up, but other posts did), if she lied about it on her form, she should be held accountable as well. If she admitted it on her form, that's on the attorneys for letting her through.
