Drag to reposition your photo

phunkejay

Male. Lives in United States. Born on November 20, 1957. Is married.

About Me

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.

For those who don't understand, no explanation... View More

Joined Groups5

26 Members

🇺🇸 Patriot Rallies USA 🇺🇸

Outreach/Activism

22 Members

Wimkin Investers

Community

392 Members

Rattle Snake Patriots

Politics and Elections

5005 Members

The Patriot Party

Politics and Elections

362 Members

VICTORY CITY, U.S.A. EST. 1776

Preparedness

Liked Pages1

7150 Likes

Donald J. Trump

Politics

phunkejay

Report this User

Status Update

phunkejay

September 13, 2026 4:37 pm

Why the lone holdout was the only juror who got it right... In all states except Massachusetts, if a defendant claims lack of responsibility due to mental incapacity (permanent or temporary), the def... View MoreWhy the lone holdout was the only juror who got it right... In all states except Massachusetts, if a defendant claims lack of responsibility due to mental incapacity (permanent or temporary), the defendant must prove they were INSANE at the time. In other words, the defendant is trying to create "reasonable doubt" of their guilt based on their "insanity" defense. However, in Massachusetts, when a defendant makes an insanity defense, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the defendant was SANE at the time. In other words, the prosecutor is trying to create "reasonable doubt" that the defendant was insane. In the case of Lindsey Clancy, there was never a question of whether or not she killed her children. There was no doubt about that fact. The question to be answered was, "Was there reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy was insane when she murdered her children?" According to the jurors who've spoken publicly, the lone holdout juror admitted to have "reasonable doubt," but wouldn't vote for a not guilty verdict. What that tells me is that eleven jurors were absolutely convinced 100% positive beyond a reasonable doubt that she was insane AT THE TIME. However, here's where there is room for reasonable doubt... Why did she send her husband out on errands so she could do the deed? She sent him out because she KNEW if he was home he would stop her from doing it. And she KNEW he would stop her because she KNEW that HE KNEW it was wrong for her to do it. Therefore, if she KNEW her husband would stop her, and she KNEW why he would, it means SHE KNEW right from wrong when she murdered her 3 children. And THAT is the "reasonable doubt" that the lone holdout juror found in Lindsey Clancy's defense. The prosecutor didn't prove LC was 100% positively SANE at the time. But the prosecutor DID create reasonable doubt that LC was 100% positively INSANE. And the one sole courageous holdout juror was the only person out of 12 who had the intelligence to understand the distinction. I rest my case.

View Less

Will Jones

The only Repentant Christian true American. The rest were cult-sodomized demon-possessed unrepentant Gog, as was the Roman Catholic-reared child-murderess; and, Luigi Mangione and Bryan Kohberger. Why “whigs,” viz. “anti-Roman Catholics,” founded the prophesied “Promised Land” in God/JC as King, to... View More

September 13, 2026

The Kekistani Consulate

While we disagree with your conclusion, we find your analysis, and awareness of the law, miles ahead of 90% of the commentary I have seen on this issue - and for that the Consulate salutes you!

To the particulars: Insanity does not preclude planning. Delusional psychotics, for example, frequent... View MoreWhile we disagree with your conclusion, we find your analysis, and awareness of the law, miles ahead of 90% of the commentary I have seen on this issue - and for that the Consulate salutes you!

To the particulars: Insanity does not preclude planning. Delusional psychotics, for example, frequently weave gandiose plans. Hers was relatively simple. And there are two "windows" for insanity: 1) Too nuts to know what she was doing 2) Too nuts to be able to stop herself Personally, I think the lone juror was wrong. She was on *13* different meds at the time, almost all psychoactive, with standards of care requiring supervision that was clearly not present. I have heard it asserted that she was negligent re the medication (e.g., "doctor shopping") - but that does not affect the resulting insanity. And they don't seem to have been offered any testimony of prior malice in her part. So which is more believable: She was a closeted homicidal maniac, carefully bidng her time all these years for the perfect moment? Or that her accumulated meds made her nuts? There is even a named syndrome that sometine shows up in overmedication cases: Akathisia. Can result in "emotional deadening, and outbursts of violence". Sound familiar? And then there's the prosecutorial incompetence. They dod not boptehr to vet their 'expert' witness, and did a poor job, and floundered badly on cross. (Prosecutors got some other, mechanical issues wrong, that would further degrade my faith in ther model of events, but that's the big one). The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doub that she was sane, and they failed. I would have voted with the rest. BUT it all really doesn't matter: The hold out changed nothing. Clancy is headed for most of a lifetime in an asylum, and the mistrial does not change that. If they retry her, they will probbaly fail again (seriously, the State's case is so weak at this point, that the defense could forgo a jury entirely, and put the case before a judge), so they may not even try.

View Less

September 13, 2026

Recent Photos

View More Photos