Did I hear this right? A juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, who was charged with the murder of her three children, an act that she admitted doing, thinks a proper verdict would have given women the license to carry out such acts willy-nilly.
Maybe I’m reading too much into her statement, but here it is, courtesy of juror Paula Devlin on CBS Mornings: “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women.”
Better to do what? Get away with murdering their own children, or maybe their husbands? How about housekeepers, or salespersons who knock on the door? Just blame it on the stress that women are put through courtesy of a misogynistic society.
The other part of this juror-reveal-all media frenzy is that the lone juror who refused to go along with this vote “to change something to make it better for other women” has been identified as a black man.
There you go, white racism on the jury’s behalf. Anyway, it appears to me that this lone holdout, even if he were a man from Mars with purple skin and one eye, got it right.
Isn’t murder murder? How do you make anything “better” if murder is being deemed acceptable?
Someone please tell me that this is all a joke, or that suddenly I can no longer decipher plain English….
