The Call Has Gone Out – Boston Media Targets the Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror

 
Brad Slager
Opinion

Lindsay Clancy jury

As we continue to endure the fallout from the non-judgment that emerged from the Lindsay Clancy trial, things only continue to get worse. Just look at the fact that right now we have factions who have backed the woman who murdered her three children, while at the same time they are upset at Sydney Sweeney posing with sports gear.

The term “misplaced” comes to mind, for some reason.

This support for Lindsay Clancy we have seen – ranging from the tacit to the blatant – is shown in something taking place in the press industry. There is a displayed preference in the press for her to have been found not guilty, shown by the reaction to the hung jury result.

There were plenty of preconceptions about this renegade juror in the press, and the assumptions have crashed to the ground as more has been learned. CBS’s Gayle King, while recently interviewing one of the sainted jurors from the trial, was shocked to learn the reviled individual was a Black man.

Now that press preference for an acquittal is taking a darker turn in the Boston area. The media there has focused on that lone holdout juror who derailed the hoped-for ruling, and he is now in the media crosshairs.

We have seen fawning interviews with a number of the jurors, with one common thread being probing questions about the holdout man who “ruined” everything. In Boston, he is now becoming the hated pariah in the press.

NBC 10 News, the local NBC affiliate, came out with a scorching expose on this man. They found that he had faced domestic violence “allegations.” The use of that word is vital. He had once been arrested over a domestic violence call, but those charges had later been dropped.

We are also told of another charge against him, as well as the fact that he is facing an eviction notice. By the appearance of things, it would seem this man is the one on trial. There is also a question of legal propriety for these actions.

Massachusetts has a law on the books stipulating that targeting a juror in this fashion could be punishable. Not only are you forbidden from trying to influence a trial by going after a participant to hinder the proceedings, it also applies to the aftermath. The law says whoever seeks to:

Punish, harm or otherwise retaliate against any such person described in this section for such person or such person’s family member’s participation in any of the proceedings described in this section, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years or by a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

After this expose came out, there was significant backlash from the public, and one staffer at NBC 10 came out rather defensive. Sue O’Connell is a commentator at NBC 10. (She makes the distinction that this is her title, and not a “reporter.”) When facing responses from the public about her station going after this juror, she responded with condescension.

She asked, with derision, how anyone knows for certain that her station had not investigated the rest of the jurors. Well, we saw your supportive interview with a number of them, Susan.

Additionally, a woman from the same jury also has a history of being charged with the very same level of battery. Interesting that this juror has not been badgered. And somehow all the questions about how the man with charges in his past was qualified to be on the jury are not hurled at this other juror. O’Connell implies her station did due investigative diligence on all 12 members, yet there was no mention of this woman’s past being a disqualifying detail, as it has with the black male holdout juror.

And then the irony flooded in. Megyn Kelly had been commenting on the NBC 10 coverage and the activist involvement of Sue O’Connell’s reporting. WAIT, wait – sorry: Her “Commentating.” O’Connell seemed bothered that Kelly had dredged up some of her activism from the 1990s.

Let’s go over this now. The journalist who is trumpeting her station digging into the past of a disapproved juror finds it unseemly that someone was digging into her own past. How about that!

But Channel 10 News is not the lone activist news source in Bean Town. The Boston Herald has come out with a column on the aftermath of the trial, and addressed the backlash this lone anonymous holdout has been enduring. There is a decided sense of justification seen in this approach.

“The negative attention he deserves.”

This can only be the conclusion one reaches when convinced the individual is some sort of heretic. The press did not get the ruling on the Lindsay Clancy trial they preferred, so anyone disrupting their desired result in that courtroom will be tried in the court of public opinion.

This is where the media have found themselves after taking sides with Lindsay Clancy. They have now concluded that the true villain in this case is the Haitian immigrant derailing their narrative, not the woman who murdered her family.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!

Tags: