The Black Juror in the Lindsay Clancy case

The reaction of interviewer Gayle King, upon being told by a White female juror that the single hold-out male-juror, who refused to conform and find that Lindsay Clancy was insane rather than a murderess, is one of the most fascinating pieces of footage I’ve seen. King was visibly surprised, paused and then admitted, “I have to sit with that for just a second,” before pausing further.

It was fascinating because it revealed so much about the workings of the broadly Woke mind. It never occurred to King – it never occurred to any of us who followed the trial – that this man was Black. The narrative was very clear. A White mother suffered from post-partum psychosis and killed her three children. The jury, being predominantly female, were high in empathy and were, of course, entirely reasonable. Of the three men, who were presumably White, one of them was unreasonable and insisted on convicting Clancy of murder, despite, apparently, admitting to having doubts. The jury went so far as to complain to the judge about his behaviour, while Clancy’s lawyer demanded that he be removed from the jury in order to break the deadlock, which the judge (rightly) refused to do. A mistrial was duly declared.

However, if your life is based around virtue-signalling in relation to “marginalised” people where the only non-marginalised person is the inherently wicked “White man,” then the holdout juror being a Black man changes everything. This would have induced in Ms. King the most severe cognitive dissonance, meaning that she had to pause and think to herself, “What is the right thing to think? What is the Party Line in this unusual situation? I am completely conflicted and at sea.”

A Black man, surely, is higher on the grievance hierarchy than a White woman. As such, in order to feel that you are morally superior, you must surely take his side. However, we expect him – as a “marginalised person” – to take the side of the broader coalition of marginalised people, such as the supposedly “insane” Lindsay Clancy. But . . . he hasn’t. As such, he is a bad man and I must condemn him as such. However, on the other hand, he is a Black man who bravely refused to change his opinion in the face of profound social pressure exerted on him by a bunch of White people; the kind of people who enslaved his ancestors and imposed the Jim Crow laws upon him. Also, the fact that I assumed that he must have been White, because a Black person would surely take the “Woke” viewpoint, means I made stereotypical assumptions about him and am, therefore, “racist,” the worst possible sin; worse than killing your three children.

For a Woke person, it is difficult to see a way out of this that allows you to maintain your sense of self-righteous moral superiority, something many studies have shown is true of them, as I’ve explored in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism. You either accept that it may be reasonable to convict Lindsay Clancy or you assert that the holdout juror is unreasonable, in which case you are a White woman condemning a Black man which might make people say you are insensitive and, indeed, “racist.” The only way to deal with the cognitive dissonance is to find evidence that the Black man – for reasons that are, of course, completely independent of racial difference in average personality – is, in fact, himself evil.

Now, of course, you can’t reveal personal information about a juror because this will undermine his sacrosanct anonymity and, worse still, destroy the possibility of Lindsay Clancy receiving a fair retrial. It is, effectively, nobbling the jury. The new jurors will all realise that if they voted the wrong way they might be “outed.” However, the Woke are so desperate to deal with their cognitive dissonance that this is precisely what they’ve done.

As juror names are released after the trial in the US and there was only one Black, male juror, we know who he is; so he can be investigated and besmirched. According to CBS, the juror was subject to a domestic violence allegation in September 2021 in Brockton, Massachusetts. His 13-year-old nephew rang the police alleging assault, leading to a restraining order. He also grabbed his wife by the throat, according to the records, and threw her into a dresser, though she refused to testify. These allegations also imply that he lied when filling out the juror information form.  The message this sends to any future juror in this case is perfectly clear. This is a corrupt system, your vote may well be identified, so it would be prudent to vote the right way; the way demanded by the Woke mob. In other words, the Left’s need for cognitive consonance – such that they can allay their negative feelings by feeling morally superior – is such that they are prepared to undermine the jury system, this being one of the fundamental tenets of American democracy.

I am amazed that the significance of this development has not been explored by the American media in more detail. It is, potentially, the death of the jury system; because jurors cannot possibly be sure that their names and decisions won’t be leaked. This case shows us just how far the West is down the road of the rule of the (Woke) mob having supplanted the rule of law. However, it is also a scintillating illustration of the shallowness and pathological Narcissism of the Woke mind. Due to these people, there is no longer “liberty and justice for all.” There is liberty and justice for those who think the “correct” way and do the “correct” things.