1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

If he was trying get a juror dismissed, what good would it do him to FALSELY state the gender of the juror as "male"? You think confusing the judge on this point would make it more likely he would get a not-guilty verdict?

First of all, I think he made that statement after he knew the judge would not dismiss the juror/jurors. And I also believe he thought (and maybe knew) the single holdout juror was male. My point, however, is that, as far as I know, we have not been told by any real authority how many jurors were holdouts and what gender they were.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

If YOU listenten carefully you will hear the prosector refer to the one juror that didm't agree with the emotional lefties as "he".

I’ll admit I didn’t listen that closely to every report on this trial. But I will wait for an authority to identify the juror/jurors who were holdouts. All this doesn’t matter anyway. If she’s brought to trial again, she will have a new jury, and I’m sure it will be made up of both males and females.

12 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, I’m sure that was it, but again, no unprejudiced and competent authority has announced how many jurors there were in the split or what their genders were.

How would misgendering them help with intimidating them?

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How would misgendering them help with intimidating them?

It wouldn’t help with the judge, but identifying the one juror who did not want to agree to a Not Guilty verdict would certainly help arouse the general public, especially women.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

It wouldn’t help with the judge, but identifying the one juror who did not want to agree to a Not Guilty verdict would certainly help arouse the general public, especially women.

Did you not understand the question?

Post breaking forum rules removed @Tourist2 rule 27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

In law, “peers” refers to individuals considered equal to a person—most commonly adult citizens from the same community who may serve on a jury

In the U.S. judicial system, a "jury of one's peers" refers to social class or standing, but mostly to locality. A farmer in a remote area should be tried by those who live in that area whenever possible and not by factory workers in a city. The opposite also applies- city factory workers should be tried by other urban dwellers.

However, if a farmer committed a crime in a city or a factory worker in a farming area, they would be tried in the area where the crimes had occurred. Presumably their jurors would be chosen from whose who also worked to earn a living, i. e., their peers.

On 9/5/2026 at 1:34 PM, webfact said:

After the killings, Clancy cut herself with a knife and jumped from a second-story window in an attempt to take her own life, an injury that has left her paralysed.

Just find a window on a higher floor and let her sit next to it unattended. Problem solved.

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It wouldn’t help with the judge, but identifying the one juror who did not want to agree to a Not Guilty verdict would certainly help arouse the general public, especially women.

Did you not understand the question?

I did understand your question, which was...
"How would misgendering them help with intimidating them?"

My answer to that is, “It probably wouldn’t.” The reason I didn’t answer it directly is that my posts all along have not been about intimidating the juror, but first about intimidating the judge by arousing the public so that he would dismiss the juror, and second about intimidating the public so that the prosecution would dismiss the case.

23 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I did understand your question, which was...
"How would misgendering them help with intimidating them?"

My answer to that is, “It probably wouldn’t.” The reason I didn’t answer it directly is that my posts all along have not been about intimidating the juror, but first about intimidating the judge by arousing the public so that he would dismiss the juror, and second about intimidating the public so that the prosecution would dismiss the case.

You claimed in a previous post that the defense lawyer made statement to intimidate the juror.

They could retry the case.

But they'll get the same results.

You can't convict a good looking cripple in a wheelchair.

Good looking people can literally get away with murder. 😎

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by SiSePuede419
Good looking people have privilege

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You claimed in a previous post that the defense lawyer made statement to intimidate the juror.

I don’t recall that, but if I did, it was before the judge had a conversation with the juror to make sure he/she/they understood their responsibilities to uphold the law. All this back and forth is pointless now, anyway. It doesn’t matter if there were many jurors of different genders who were the cause of being unable to reach a verdict. The woman will either be tried again or not. And if she is and found guilty, she’ll spend the rest of her life in prison. And if her case is now dismissed or she’s tried again and found not guilty, she’ll most likely spend the rest of her life in a medical facility.

@Tourist2 Keep it on topic and refrain from descending into conspiracy theory. Posts removed.