Sick: Lib Writer Supports Doxing Clancy Jurors to Get Not-Guilty Verdict in Future, Says Holdout ‘Getting the Negative Attention He Deserves’

Wendy Murphy is a law professor at New England Law Boston where she’s taught for 15 years. According to her bio in the Boston Herald, she’s an “impact litigator whose work in state and federal courts around the country has changed the law to improve protections for women’s and children’s constitutional rights.”

You would think that, given that process, she would be horrified by a woman who killed three children and, if she thought she should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity, she would at least have respect for the legal process.

And naturally, you’d be wrong on both counts.

Instead, Murphy is going viral for all the wrong reasons after a Tuesday opinion piece in the Boston Herald in which she thought it was a good thing that the sole holdout juror in the case who caused a mistrial was doxxed by the media and was now “getting the negative attention he deserves.”

Instead of lamenting that this subverts the legal process by making it clear to jurors that if they reach unpopular decisions, they’ll be flayed alive by local and national media, she’s thrilled that this makes it “easy for District Attorney Tim Cruz to agree to a plea deal that gets Lindsay the help she needs” and thinks that the media focused too much on vilifying Lindsay Clancy.

Someone who comes to that conclusion might be the actual insane one, but one digresses here, because her article got the treatment it deserved for that one line:

Not often you get to see pure retardium like this take in the wild!

— Chesterton_Report (@Veritas_Curat7) September 16, 2026

Is this a parody?? 🤦‍♂️🤮

— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) September 15, 2026

The negative attention…he deserves?!

You people are vile. https://t.co/o6rBBc5oiL

— Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) September 16, 2026

Just so we’re clear what we’re talking about here, it took the press roughly zero time to find out the individual’s identity and the fact that he allegedly had an altercation with a former spouse years ago, one in which charges were dismissed. Clancy admitted to killing her kids, but we were supposed to believe that she was not guilty by reason of insanity due to an incredibly unusual (and rather convenient) episode of postpartum psychosis that her actual mental health providers never diagnosed her with.

The only reason this had any chance of working is because of Massachusetts’ ridiculous insanity plea laws, which force the prosecution to prove that the defendant had the “substantial capacity” to conform their behavior to the strictures of the law. It’s one of only five states that uses this liberal standard, and for good reason: If you admit to the act but claim you’re clinically unstable to the point where it drove you to commit the act, the burden of proof should shift to you. But in liberal Massachusetts, not so much.

Now, the media in Boston is hounding the guy who caused a mistrial by believing that the prosecution proved its case. It’s rather unbelievable: The same people who couldn’t find George Floyd’s lengthy criminal record back in 2020 found unsubstantiated (legally, anyhow) charges against this guy within a week.

Murphy assumedly knows this, given that she’s a professor of law. However, this is only assumedly because the logic she employs from the rest of the opinion piece, which doesn’t get much better from there.

“The jurors voted 11-1 for insanity. This indicates that public opinion breaks down along similar lines. So why does social media make it seem like the public divide is closer to 50-50?” she wrote.

If juries were like public opinion on any case, we’d never have a solitary conviction; surely the woman knows this. Furthermore, trying a case in the court of public opinion was supposed to be a pejorative back in my day. Now, apparently, we all ought to conform to this standard.

It’s not as if the media wasn’t helping her side, covering the pink-clad Clancy supporters outside the Plymouth, Massachusetts, courtroom with something like reverence.

Instead, despite the fact that the side she’s boosting here is the one that’s basically letting Clancy off easily, she thinks it’s the other way around:

An enormous amount of money is being spent elevating story lines that have nothing to do with how people really feel.

It’s not that we wouldn’t otherwise pay attention. A mother killing her children has a baseline of sensationalism simply because it’s profoundly sad and extremely uncommon. But the case would not have garnered so much attention if so-called “social media influencers” hadn’t been paid to talk about the case using carefully selected us vs. them narratives that pit people against each other like it’s a sporting event. …

PR firms promote only certain story lines – and they pay influencers and bot farms to spread them. Bot farms are especially dangerous because they manufacture completely fake people on platforms like X, TikTok and to make it look like hundreds of thousands of people feel a certain way even though the real number is exponentially smaller.

Apparently, she forgot that the majority of the engagement-bait content looked like this:

Actress Lisa Rinna says she and her female therapist agreed that Patrick Clancy killed his children, not Lindsay Clancy, because “women don’t strangle.”

“[My therapist] looks at me and she goes, ‘He did it.’ I was like, ‘Wow, yeah.’”

I’ve never seen so much brain rot. pic.twitter.com/bFuOnf29EB

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) August 17, 2026

You sure showed that door who was boss

This is peak toddler behavior pic.twitter.com/P3Y81jRc04

— Luka (@LukaLev) August 19, 2026

This woman says her new dating-vetting process includes asking a man on the first date whether he believes Lindsay Clancy is innocent. If he says no, she says she’ll walk out.

“I cannot spend the rest of my life with someone who thinks that woman is guilty and deserves jail.”… pic.twitter.com/GG2NiAImD6

— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) August 22, 2026

She also has an Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theory about the case, including how the other Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theories are really part of a bigger Oliver Stone-esque conspiracy theory she has!

“One possibility is the insurance companies that represent the mental health professionals who are being sued by the Clancy family. Between the horrific loss of three small children and the unbearable pain that will consume the family for a lifetime, a jury could easily award the Clancy family 500 million or more,” she wrote.

“This gives the insurance companies a powerful reason to spend a ton of money elevating story lines that generate negative attention, especially toward Lindsay. The more the public dislikes Lindsay, the greater the chance a jury will assign some of the blame to her, thus award less money to the family. Even ridiculous stories about the children’s father being the real killer help insurance companies save money by reducing sympathy for him.”

I dunno. It seems pretty easy to dislike someone based on the fact that they strangled their three children. Big Pharma doesn’t have to pump millions into TikTok wine mommies discussing their inane theories about how Patrick Clancy was the second shooter on the grassy knoll to get people to not like Lindsay Clancy.

And like an Oliver Stone movie with an implausible notion about why something happens, this rambles on for far too long about things not even tangentially related to the original premise:

Dark money industries like porn and sex trafficking also benefit from propaganda that misleads people into thinking women are just as violent as men. They aren’t. Not even close. 90% of people who kill children are men. 95% of people who commit rape are men. Nearly all people who kill and rape women are men. I could go on. Lindsay’s case isn’t about porn and sex trafficking, but the men who make money in these industries are only too happy to jump on the hate-women bandwagon because it’s good for profits.

Social media influencers won’t admit that they get paid to promote certain narratives, so it’s hard for the public to see what’s going on. But it’s obvious if we remember what Orwell taught us in his classic novel 1984 when he wrote about the dangers of propaganda. “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” Orwell understood better than most how easy it is to force people to accept ideas that make no sense. He called it doublethink, the ability to be “conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies.” … 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

Just to be clear, we’re not talking about Winston Smith fighting bravely against Big Porn Brother here, we’re talking about a wealthy housewife who strangled her kids. Ninety percent of child-killers are men? Great. I hope they get the same sentence Clancy does: life behind bars, at the very least.

Wendy Murphy is a law professor who thinks mob rule is the law, so I’m going to assume that she’s not too familiar with “1984,” either. Two quotes in particular stick out for me: “Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

That’s the cheery side of the message. And here’s when Big Brother intervenes and makes Winston Smith suffer. From Smith’s torturer, O’Brien: “Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating?”

We do indeed, Wendy Murphy: One in which you’ll be hounded down and torn to pieces by the Wendy Murphys of the world, who direct social media wolves toward wayward jurors for obeying their conscience and what they believe was the correct interpretation of the law in the face of Rightthink, sanctioned by The Experts. The dissenters will be doxxed, hounded, have their lives ruined. Or they can learn their lesson in advance, be good little puppets of the media — which Murphy seems to labor, deliberately or accidentally, under the misapprehension was in the tank for a conviction when quite the opposite was true.

If everyone else has forgotten that lesson as the lone holdout juror experiences his Two Minutes Hate, thanks, Ms. Murphy. You were certainly there to remind them.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.