Sometimes you need reminding.

Just how psychotic the left is. 

Conspiracy. 

I am not sure what is going on with the Lindsay Clancy case in... I heard a bit of conspiracy that seemed realistic. My understanding is that she never plead guilty. It is often said 'she admitted to it'. But in fact it was only the husbands word that she told him that. 

After she allegedly killed the children. She cut her wrist across (not down the vein) and then jumped out the window head first and shattered her spine. I believed this supported the conspiracy narrative because, as was being said on Tik Tok. Cutting across the wrist is not effective. So although she was clearly very serious about killing herself but with medical knowledge did not cut her wrists properly? Is the case made.

I have learned this is an uninformed myth though. Although it was said when I was younger that TV shows show cutting across the wrists because they don't want to show the real technique for suicide which is cutting down the vein. Actually, it is the artery which is on the outside of the wrist that is the thing that kills. So this seemed to be inconsistent to me. Like someone said "maybe someone else did it". But it is in fact not. Cutting across the wrist like she did is in fact how someone would kill themselves. This is consistent. 

The only other thing from Owen Benjamin. Was that her husband apparently then married someone connected to child trafficking and generally "connected".

The state assumed guilt in this case. As they often do. She did not plead guilty. The state is not bringing a trial to prove that she actually killed anyone. And they did not take any evidence to prove that she did. Like, DNA and such. The trial is on whether she was experiencing psychosis when she did the crime. As I said, it is assumed she did.  

Maybe that is legitimate I don't know. Many times when the state has done this it has been proven to be wrong. Not always in murders. From my perspective then. The state has simply not proven guilt. If you don't prove guilt, you don't get a conviction. I am not assuming guilt because they said so (surely they get enough money to do their jobs! The state steals like 80% of all wealth.). Even if, circumstantially, it makes a great deal of sense. On the 3% chance someone else did it. She should go free.  

Morons. 

Anyway, this is not the case that is being shown out in the world. In the actual trial. Most of the jurors seemed to me that they didn't have two brain cells to rub together. They can't even contend with the facts of the case itself. Let alone consider the behaviour of the State before this trial. It would be a very uncomfortable thing I think me being in that room reading with incredible preciseness everything I could on the case. Every bit of evidence. Memorising it, arguing those facts, and getting angry at passive aggressive responses in defence. 

The whole situation has become an absolute circus though. The title of this blog post. 'Sometimes you need reminding' and 'The psychopathy of the left'. Is that, the case went to mistrial. There were eleven jurors who wanted her to be declared mentally unfit. And one hold out juror. 

This was all happening in the liberal mainstream media. Whom have a very specific belief system that they religiously adhere to. Women are perfect and in most cases unreproachable. No matter how bad their behaviour. No consequence should ever come to them. As in this specific case. The jurors, believed Lindsay killed her kids. by 7 minute strangulation of each kid. But they wanted her released anyway.  

The defence lawyer threatened this one juror. Saying that he would be scrutinised and investigated after the case. Then, several jurors were interviewed by the MSM. The first juror said something like "He couldn't get over the fact she had killed her three children"... Uh. Not sure what to say to that. The next one, was a guy, who said that he didn't understand why the hold out juror had tied the exercise band around the water bottle to show the process of strangling the child (i.e. maybe arguing Lindsays commitment to the murder? Or the horror of it?) But then he admitted the guy did actually give his reason. He was obviously trying to imply the guy was being unreasonable but didn't have anything. 

The third juror though, when asked about the make up of ages and ethnicities of the jury. Admitted something that seemed to absolutely destroy the liberals platform... The lone juror was black! He was a minority. Another one of those that are above reproach in the mainstreams fanaticism. 

So... what are you going to do now?

The right was very jubilant about this. Very happy. But the left, and the mainstream media didn't miss a beat. They just started targeting the black holdout juror. (After the case had already been declared a mistrial).

The whole thing is clearly criminal. The media should not have the power to intimidate a juror. The whole point of a jury is to not be intimidated. But what was so weird. And so not understandable to regular people with values. Is that the MSM just turned on the black guy. Started tracking his employer down and printing that he was a criminal of some description.

And no matter how many times I theorise about these people. It still surprises me that they have just lied... Again! They have never cared about black people. The white liberal jurors and the MSM are now scapegoating him as the dumb black guy. 

It is just a weird thing for many people to try and process. It does not matter how many times you experience people with no values. It never quite seems to make any sense. 

It reminds me of a note I have made. Stefan Molyneux FDR Podcast 5839: "To a person who has railed against conscience. All relationships are expendable." What he was talking about here. Is that if you know someone who has done evil stuff. If you were to challenge them on it. A lot of them would not handle the situation. They would get angry. Make excuses and throw the person bringing up the issue out of the room.

Because once the conscience has been fought against and evil doing has happened. This becomes the thing the person serves. So rather like what the mainstream media have done perhaps. They are serving something else. The juror somehow stepped on a principle or important piece in the global chess match and they are serving that principle and so the juror goes out the window. Even if the juror and protecting black people is a value they previously claimed. 

It is all so weird. Anyway, that's what I had to say for the moment.