The Lindsay Clancy Case is the MOST FAKE of all Time
Mon 6:34 am +00:00, 7 Sep 2026
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/clancy.pdf
September 4, 2026
Just my opinion as usual, based on free internet research and protected by the Constitution
I knew it was faked as soon as I learned it was televised. Televised=CIA fake trial. Period. I have
proved that many times, starting with the O. J. Simpson fake. It’s on CourtTV, a CIA front.
Everything on CourtTV is a complete and utter fraud and always has been, filmed out of the CIA’s own
lots in Studio City or Langley or somewhere.
But this one takes the cake, since it is a blatant test of your legal knowledge, even more than all the
previous ones. That is what came out this week, as we learned the jury was deadlocked. I assumed
that meant one juror was refusing to convict on the charges, and they require unanimity since it is a
murder charge. But noooooo. If you read more closely, the one juror is refusing to vote with defense,
to let her off. Which is why defense is throwing a big fit, scolding the judge for not instructing the jury
enough on reasonable doubt. Defender/actor Reddington wanted the juror removed for voting to
convict. But you have to read very closely to see that, since they never tell you that directly.
This is all a joke, since you don’t need unanimity to acquit, only to convict. See if you can follow me
here: if you need unanimity and 11 of 12 jurors vote to convict, that is a deadlock and the judge can call
a mistrial, in which case there may be a second trial. But if 1 of 12 jurors vote to convict, that is not a
deadlock or a mistrial. It is an acquittal. No point retrying when arguments only convince one of 12
jurors to convict, right? Yes, a 1-11 vote is technically a hung jury, but no state is going to retry a case
like that, so it is as good as an acquittal.
If you don’t believe me, see here, a law website that comes up near the top on this question.
A deadlocked jury might occasionally portend good news for the defendant. For instance,
the prosecution might decide not to retry the case if 11 jurors voted for acquittal and only
one juror chose to convict. As a result, the case can be dropped…
Except that it is even stronger than that, since “occasionally” there applies to the 1-11 vote, which
hardly ever comes up. It wouldn’t, because it indicates the case should have never been taken to trial.
It indicates the grand jury goofed by indicting. The “occasionally” doesn’t apply to the decision not to
retry in that instance, since a state would almost always decline to retry such a case. Not
“occasionally” but “almost always”. It would just be waste of time and money to retry such a case. In
my opinion, it should be illegal to retry such a case. Beyond the question of double jeopardy, it begs
the question of hidden malice from some party. Who is prosecuting such a case and why?
You see, jurors don’t vote to convict or acquit. They vote to convict or not convict, with a no vote as
good as an acquittal. So if you have 10 of 11 no votes, that indicates no tendency to convict from a
jury seated in that jurisdiction. So Reddington should be ecstatic, and the fact we see him throwing a
fit and scolding the judge is just pure theatrics. Vaudeville. A real judge would never put up with it.
Judge Sullivan should have shut Reddington down immediately and then found him in contempt when
he kept it up. Another way we know this is all a CIA fake.
But you should have know it was fake from “hello”. Being drugged up or stressed out isn’t an excuse
or a defense for murdering three children. Almost everyone is drugged up and stressed out now, so is murder now OK? Does everything go now, with no responsibility. No, had this been real, the mother
should have known not to go on ten anti-anxieties, especially since she was allegedly a nurse. Did she
or her doctors really believe giving her a bunch of pills was going to solve anything? Did anyone
believe mixing ten different experimental medications was the way to go? No. That was a horrible
mistake off the top and the person taking the pills has final responsibility for that. Had this been real,
the doctors should have been convicted as well, as in the Matthew Perry case, but it wasn’t real so this
is just speculation. But again, that is another clue: if defense is right and the doctors are responsible,
why have they not been charged? Contradictions everywhere. No continuity in this Langley script, as
usual.
So who is this defense attorney Kevin Reddington? Must be some kind of spook, right? Looks like it
to me. He is 75, so you have to ask why he isn’t retired. Don’t they have some kind of sunset law on
trial lawyers?
Plenty more at the above link
