September 14, 2026 • 32 mins
Several jurors have made the rounds, continuing to point the finger at the holdout juror that ultimately resulted in a mistrial for the Lindsay Clancy triple murder case. In an unscripted moment, CBS host Gayle King was shocked when she realized, and the juror she was interviewing confirmed, that the hold out juror was a black man. We go over why this was such a shocking revelation to King and why it’s now created an unusual political divide: An unlikely Republican leader coming to the defense of the black juror, while several national medial outlets dig up dirt on the juror’s background.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
All right.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. Stop us if you've heard this one before.
Eleven white jurors and one black juror walk into a bar.
We should have known this wasn't going to go well.
And with that, everybody, welcome to the show. I'm TJ.
That's Rogues. The world has gone crazy. The juror, the
lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial is black.
(00:23):
Gayle King can't believe it. MAGA is running to the
defense of the black man. The world, like you just
said before we started, it's like we're in the upside down.
What's going on?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The liberals are all backing the 11 white jurors and
finding dirt, like digging up dirt on this black juror.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
And it just feels like what you.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Would expect certain sides of the fence, who they'd be,
what team they'd be on. Everyone's all mixed up from
what you would typically expect to happen.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Robes, you have... conservatives coming to the defense of a
black man against 11 white jurors and liberals.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Yes, all over whether or not a white woman intended
to murder her three white babies.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
And Gayle King almost fell out of the chair.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Where do we begin? I'm not sure where we're supposed
to start. Actually, let me get your reaction, and both
of us here, our reaction to the two big parts
of the story that developed late last week that we
did get word that, yes, the lone holdout is black,
and then Gayle King's reaction to that caused certainly a
stir and a debate to go. So, my first question
to you, your reaction just when we found out that
(01:39):
the lone holdout was a black man. What was your reaction?
Speaker 1 (01:41):
For me, it.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
I guess I was a little surprised, but I didn't
have the same reaction that maybe you had, certainly not
the one that Gayle King had. But we had had
a conversation about who we thought this holdout juror was
while the deliberations were going on, and I was leaning
towards a man. I felt like this obviously was a man.
I didn't know what the racial makeup of the jury was,
so I wasn't even thinking race. I was only thinking gender.
(02:06):
And so to hear it was a black man, I
guess that didn't surprise me because I just feel like,
Given what I know from you and what I've known
just in covering events, obviously I could see a black
man being distrustful of the system, being distrustful of police,
being distrustful of the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
So to me, it wouldn't be that.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Surprising that he would demand to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if you can't, it's just not shocking to me
that he was trying to then, with.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
All of that, still uphold the law and hold someone accountable.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Okay, so- Your reaction to him being a black guy,
your reaction though to now Gayle King's reaction. We'll get
into it if you haven't seen it, you probably already have,
but your reaction to her flat out being surprised in
the middle of an interview when she learned the guy
was a black guy.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
I honestly didn't understand it at first.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I really didn't because I wasn't sure, am I looking
at this through a racial lens or am I looking
at this through a political ideology? I wasn't sure where
she was coming from and you filled in the Blanks.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
A little bit for me because I don't ever want
to assume.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
As a white person, I don't claim to know the
experience of or the lens through which you're seeing things.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
That's funny. No, and that was probably the problem in
the jury room, right? My reaction when I found out
I was a black guy, so much else made sense.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
You were like, of course.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
It all made sense. We'll get into that, but ropes.
We had issue from the jump. of deliberations with how
they were treating this juror. We didn't understand. They were
trying to get him kicked off, and it went on,
and then the attacks came after. We didn't understand. Found
out he was a black guy. I was like, oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
And the interesting thing is you were, in our podcast
and certainly behind the scenes, very much rallying in the
defense of this juror. Well before we knew the race
of this juror, you kept saying this feels like bullying.
This feels like they don't like what he thinks. So
they're trying to say he did something procedurally wrong or
(04:15):
legally wrong to try and get him and pressure him
and get the judge to pressure him and get the
world to pressure him to think like they think. And
you thought that was anti-American. Really, that it flew in
the face of our judicial system and how it's set up.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
But our system is set up for him to have
that opinion. It's also set up that he doesn't have
to explain that to everybody else. It's also, as long
as he's following the rule, he didn't do anything wrong.
He was deliberating. So we were strongly defending this guy.
I was in shock at how the system was even
allowing these other 11 to almost beat up on this
(04:50):
guy and tell on him. They're trying to get that
guy kicked off, and it seemed like Robes, the only
thing is, he won't agree with us so we can
all go home. We didn't like it at the beginning.
Tell me now he's a black man. I go, oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
So please explain why that makes so much sense to you.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Because I've been in that room my whole career. And Robes,
this is a moment that you can just imagine that
you have 11 white people that don't have any choice
or any options in the matter to get this one
black guy to do their bidding. Imagine how that feels.
(05:28):
I know how it feels in a room like this.
I have not been on a jury deliberation, nothing like this.
But every single morning for eight years, hey, good morning, America, baby,
I went into a room where I was essentially the
only black man in a room full of about 20
to 30 white people. And I had countless instances where
(05:48):
I had an opinion that was not valued because those
20 or 30 white people had the same experiences. and
the same opinion. So therefore, if we all agree, you
must be wrong. He's sitting in that room with, yes,
there are racial dynamics here that's going to be hard
(06:11):
for some people to understand, but it'll be easy for
black folks to. There is now Robes, we can't make
him do this. So what are we going to do?
We don't respect him. Get on board. They actually tried
to get him kicked off.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
They called him arrogant. They said he didn't grasp the law.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Now you're talking about his intelligence. Some things started coming
out that just didn't make sense, baby, until you told
me he was black. And I go, oh, he's arrogant.
He doesn't grasp the law. What was he not getting?
I hope he can sleep well at night. He wasted
this time. He had... That's the thing, babe. Now they're
attacking him. He is being doxxed to a certain degree, ropes.
(06:52):
They're going after his background. What did... Three kids are dead,
and they're telling me this guy's a problem because he
didn't pay his rent. They literally are looking up his
rental history and applying... And they're attacking him, babe. And
it feels awful.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
They're pointing to an allegation and an arrest where there
was never a conviction, which, by the way, you can
be arrested and be.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
a juror.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
So they're like, they're looking to see whether or not
he lied on his juror application. And look, plenty of
people have been arrested for no reason whatsoever or have
been proven to be innocent. The charges were dropped against him,
but they're bringing up, they're looking for anything to make
him look like a bad seed.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
A bad dude. We've seen, because you didn't do what
we told you to do. How dare you black man
have power over this proceeding? Rose, he had power over
the proceeding. And I don't know what his convictions are, babe.
He might absolutely believe what a lot of America believes
(07:54):
is that this woman should be in prison.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Yes, and there have been plenty of op-eds from conservatives
who I've already seen. The Washington Post actually had one
just put out saying he was the only one who
got it right. So a lot of people do believe that,
and it has become a party, a partisan issue.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Let me ask you this. Explain Gayle King's reaction to me.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
I see it as she had an idea already in
her head, and that flew in the face of it.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
She thought maybe it was a MAGA sympathizer, someone who
was conservative, because we mentioned it had been on political lines.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
That's all the debate has been, right? And publicly, conservatives
are like, you crazy liberals. I think there was an
easy assumption to make, and she probably did have in
her head. Well, yeah, it's a white guy. Some white
guy's holding everything up.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Some Republican white guy.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Black people aren't supposed to think a certain way according
to certain people. We're supposed to be Democrats. We're supposed
to vote a certain way. We're supposed to eat a
certain thing. We're supposed to like a certain music. We
fit into categories. And yes, even black people put each
other in those categories sometimes. And she was shocked that
this guy would be so dead set, Robes, in what
(09:14):
he believed, that he would still keep that vote. Somebody
that convicted in what they believe must be some hardcore
conservative over there holding things up. It's a black man?
Speaker 1 (09:28):
She said, I need to sit with that? Is that
what she said?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
We have it in here. Where's the exact... So they're
going back and forth. There it is. She says to
the juror, is the holdout juror a black man? The
juror responds, yes. Gail says, a black man is a
holdup juror? Whoa, I have to sit with that for
just a second. Well, it was a funny, honest moment
because she was literally thrown off guard.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
It is so interesting, though. It was a genuine moment,
as you pointed out. But we all that's the point
at which all of us. us could ask ourselves, wow,
we have ideas in our head.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
We label people. We make assumptions all the time.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
And all of a sudden, when that assumption is proven
to be wrong, it takes a second.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And look, this is a learning, a learning, teachable moment.
In a lot of ways. But unfortunately, this black holdout
juror is paying the price.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Rogues, is he ever going to speak? Should he speak?
Does he need to speak? Does he want to show
his face? I don't know. But, Rogues, the way he's
being attacked before and now after the trial, it's just
not fair. I'm not defending. I don't know his background.
I'm not defending anything. I don't know what he's done.
But the system told me he was a legit juror.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I'm done.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Nothing else to talk about. He's a legit juror. And
y'all don't like it? Okay.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
And we also learned a little bit more that it
wasn't just 11 to 1 initially. This was interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
And it wasn't as if this holdout juror refused to budge.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
This was interesting.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So there were some new details that came out.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
First of all, the initial juror split, more than one
person wanted to find.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Lindsay Clancy guilty. That's huge.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yeah, the split was 8-2-2, correct? So 8 not guilty, 8.
Two guilty and two that were undecided, and they just
weren't sure where they fit. And after they were going
back and forth and back and forth, he ended up,
he initially wanted first degree murder. He came down.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
We don't know if it was to second degree or
to manslaughter, but.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
He did agree to change because he watched the video, correct?
Speaker 1 (11:34):
A video changed his mind?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Some interview that Lindsay Clancy had. Now, Robes, isn't that,
Isn't that telling and significant?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
If the judge had heard that, if anybody hears that
this guy, wait a minute, he went from first degree
down to manslaughter, maybe, or even down to second degree,
it means he was willing to be open to change
his mind to some degree. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah. I mean, the quote from the other jurors were,
we watched video of the interview with Clancy, and after that, he,
the holdout juror, replied that it wasn't murder in the
first degree, and that's where we saw his doubt.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
That sounds like, to me, they saw an opening.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Ooh.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Thank you, baby. He moved.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
He changed his mind. We can keep changing his mind.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Okay, but the way she put it, that's where we
saw doubt. So, therefore, if there's some doubt, they used that,
it seemed.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
And that's not fair.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
It's not, baby.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
That's not fair.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I actually think that shows that he was critically thinking
and willing to keep his mind open when he decided, okay,
after I see this, I don't think it was first-degree.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That's how the system's supposed to work.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
He re-evaluated a piece of video and then came to
a different conclusion that actually came closer to agreeing with
some of the other jurors. Isn't that what the process
is supposed to be like? But then he gets to say,
this is as far as I'm willing to go. And
then if they can't come to an agreement, what's supposed
to happen is a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Isn't that something nobody's getting on to the, should he
come out and say, yeah, they walked in the room,
they were all not guilty and they never budged. They
weren't willing to negotiate. They weren't willing to, right?
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Eight of them walked in and said not guilty and
never changed their mind. He was willing to and now
he's the one being called out for not being a
good deliberator.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
We did the age range. Some of the other interesting
nuggets here. The age range, 70 to 22. That's a
wide range.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
But I actually think that's good. That's good.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
You want to have, I mean, you want to have diversity.
You want to have diversity in age, experience, yes, in race,
all of that because everyone brings a different piece of
experience and a different lens through which they see the
world into that juror deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
And that is what we're supposed to have happen, I
would argue.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
A lot of parents on the jury. That was interesting
that they'd come out as well. Robes, and I want
to get into this with you because I think a
lot of people, it's hard to, we don't want to
be in a position where some people are dismissive and, oh,
this is all about race. And this did become, quite frankly,
(14:04):
a big story about race. I was actually on Twitter,
on X, and just saw their news headline on the side,
and it said, Mistrial in Clancy Child Murder Case After
Black Jurors Hold Out. That was the headline. So here
we go. Rogue, did you think anything of it based
on your experience? Did race play, when you hear he's black,
(14:26):
you just say, okay, or what, seriously, from your lens
of what racial dynamics play into that?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
I initially didn't think anything, but I understand as a
white person why white people would then say, oh, see,
he just refused to agree with us just because we're white. Like,
they could make that same argument. He didn't want to
go along with us because he wanted to be the
adversary or to be the, you know, the rubble rouser.
(15:06):
And they could have been dismissive of his legitimate... beliefs
his legitimate conclusions that he came to after critically evaluating
what he saw and they might have been dismissive of
it because they might have been viewing him through a
lens of race like oh he's just adversarial because we're
all white and he's black and he doesn't want to
(15:26):
agree with us and just to prove a point that
he doesn't have to he's not gonna and i could
see the white jurors looking at him.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Through that lens.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I am fascinated by this guy You know how hard
that is to do?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I cannot imagine. For seven days.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
To dig your heels.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
In for how many hours? 30-something hours of deliberations. They
didn't make it to 40?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
They made it to 40.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
That had to have been excruciating.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
We have, and again, you can see some things differently
because of the experiences you've had with me and seeing
how we have to navigate around the world. But even
before we were dating, and we've told the story publicly
a couple times without identifying the players. But, Rove, there's
nothing worse than the feeling of not being allowed to
(16:19):
have your own unique experience in this country. Because some
people don't understand what it does feel like on a
day-to-day basis to be black in America.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Well, white people can't know what that feels like, period.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, there it is. Obviously, that's true. But there are
so many that don't see it that way because they
think our experience needs to be the same as theirs
through their lens. And that's the only one they can
see it through. And too often, white people win because
(16:52):
they're the ones in charge. Can't convince you, can't convince
you because.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
I'm... Because I don't have to.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
On the lower end of the totem pole.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
First of all.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
And I'm saying, yeah, the white folks aren't trying to
bring you along or convince you or... in any way,
try to have a genuine conversation where they're open to
your experience because they don't have to.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Don't have to be. And this was a rare occasion
where they had to. And they couldn't change his mind.
And they had no recourse in this matter that they
might have in a boardroom, on the city street, on
(17:32):
television and debate, whatever it may be, somewhere else. So, Robes,
I don't ever want to always hold my tongue because
I'm not mad at this woman and don't think she's
a bad person. But she had a really, really ugly
moment and that you were there for. When I have
(17:53):
never in my life been shot down more in having
a genuine opinion and feeling about something. And you were
standing right next to me when it happened, March 28th,
I believe it was, 2022? Two, yes. The night after
the Oscars.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
The Oscars, of course, where Will Smith slapped comedian and
host Chris Rock. And so you and we were about
to go on the air and you were talking about
what you were going to say because you were actually
being tasked with talking about this. We were there, we
(18:34):
were watching it. Two black men, you're a black man,
and you were sharing what you were going to say.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Were you practicing what you were saying? Were you rehearsing
what you were saying?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I think we might have just all been kind of
discussing it. We were just talking about it. Because this
was out there, it was four in the morning, right?
It was in LA.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
So the ceremony just wrapped up. We were all a
little tired.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
We hadn't really slept. I don't think we slept at all.
None of us had.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
All of us a little punchy.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
We were all talking about what we experienced, and you
were talking about it, how you experienced it as a
black man. The first time a black producer was producing
the Oscars. You've got a black host who is hosting
the Oscars, and now you've got a black man who
is about to win Best Actor.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
And don't forget, we had D-Nice DJ there. It was
a black, this was a black Oscars.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
And so to have this very historic moment be clouded,
ruined by Will Smith, you had real feelings that a
white person would not understand. But the problem is there
is no acknowledgement of that by this other person. And
you were told that your experience was wrong, that your
(19:41):
reaction wasn't fair, and that what this white person experienced
with the people she was around completely outweighed how you
were feeling in the moment. And I believe she was
urging you not to say what you wanted to say
because you were wrong.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
This was one of the most difficult individual moments I
ever had at ABC. Because we were standing there, yes,
the three of us, but folks back in the studio,
like we were wired up at that time. We were
close to going on the air, but where we were
standing out there live in LA, that was 30 plus
(20:26):
folks on the set hearing all this. And I can
remember still only one of the black guy being on
that set besides me. But Rose, I could not believe the, Ignorance.
And I'm not calling the person stupid. I'm saying by
a lack of understanding of what they haven't experienced, to
(20:48):
actually tell me, a black man, that the way I
experienced that moment was not legit. It's not right. It's
not okay. You don't have a right to it, TJ.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
My jaw was dropped.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
The words were, no way. TJ, you are seeing it
all wrong and you are making it something that it's not.
A white woman told a black man that, not understanding
that I've been taught from birth, make sure you don't
do your dirty laundry out in front of white folks.
(21:24):
Don't fight in front of white people. Don't let them
see what's happening in the house. We know this. We've
taught this. There's something else we understand, Robes. You don't ever, ever, ever.
We had the first black Oscars. And this is the result.
We got two of the biggest black stars up there
fighting on stage. What that meant for all of us was, oh,
my God. It's the same reaction we had when Obama
(21:45):
was elected. Like, oh, no matter what you think, he
better not mess this up or we'll never have another
brother in there for 100 years. That is how we
see and react because, baby, we don't get these opportunities.
So when they come, we got to nail them or
it looks bad on all of us. And I got
a white woman. in front of 30 people, my colleagues,
(22:08):
telling me I don't have a black experience. Babe, that
was a tough moment. And so I have had several
moments at GMA like that, where you're trying to convince
30 people that they're wrong, or at least to get
them to see your experience as legitimate. But they don't
(22:30):
because it's not like theirs. And since 30 of them agree,
I have to be wrong. Can you imagine sitting in
that jury room? Baby.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
And it's so wild because you felt that way. Neither
one of us thought that that juror was black. And
yet you were, and I think because of your experience,
regardless of what his background was, what he looked like,
where he came from, you feel, I don't want to
say camaraderie, but you understand what it feels like to
be the only person who thinks differently from the others.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Immediately. Immediately. And I know how you get cut down.
You get shot down. What was the first thing? First thing,
disagreement with the person standing next to me. What was
the first thing? Nope, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're making
something that's not. Why you always got to make it that?
That was the reaction. Really, why did you see it
that way? Nobody asked that. Nobody ever asked that. We just,
(23:22):
we're used to this thing, baby.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I'm right, you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
We're used to it. Right, wrong, and we're outnumbered. And
we are outranked. So sit down and shut up. What?
Shut up and dribble? How many times black folks just
keep getting told to shut up, shut up, shut up?
We're used to this thing, baby. So, yes, if that
woman had said in front of me, yes, the lone
holdout was black, I would go, aha, I knew it.
(23:49):
This all makes sense now. That would have been my reaction.
Gail almost fell out the chair. Gail almost fell. You
know what? Gail has a different black experience than I do.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
That's a black man. It's different from hers. Oh my God.
And we love Gail. This is not a dishonest reaction.
Nothing's wrong with that. But it was funny to me.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
And look, we had said so many wonderful things and
we stand by our experience of watching Kevin Reddington do
his thing.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But wow. Once you heard the quote, did he, did
he know he was black when he said this?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
It's a tough sentence.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Because if he knew he was black when he said it,
it would be way worse.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
He knew it was a man. Yes. So he probably did.
I have a hard time thinking he couldn't piece together
which one it was. He knew. I bet he knew.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
So obviously the jurors called him arrogant, said he struggled
to comprehend what the law was, said that he couldn't
cite any evidence to support his position.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
But Kevin Reddington said this. They were robbed by one man.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
He added at gunpoint.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, he did not.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Okay, sorry. I got a little worked up here.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
That was tough.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I mean, that's the thing. They weren't... The system says
they weren't robbed. The system says... This is the system.
And he had a right to do what he wanted
to do, even though there were 11 other people pressuring him.
I don't know if I could have. Nah, I probably
would have. But I don't know. You know how hard
that was?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
I know you would have held your ground.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I mean, if you really believe it.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
I know you would have.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Why wouldn't he have? And aren't some seeing him as
a guardian angel looking over those kids? That's how he's
being regarded in some circles. And the other side is
seeing him as what?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
As someone who robbed... Lindsay Clancy of the treatment she
deserves or of the outcome she deserves or who was
unwilling to acknowledge that postpartum psychosis is real. So look,
it's also interesting we talked about the reactions and yes,
it's now been this weird reversal of support that you
(26:05):
wouldn't expect. But even more so, this one black holdout
juror has a champion tweeting for him.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
This is the weirdest story ever.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
And it's the most unlikely story supporter you could imagine.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
This is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
His tweet reads as follows.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
A man objected to allowing a woman to kill her
three young kids and get away with it. So NBC
is trying to smear that juror whose identity should be protected.
Another low for legacy media. If the juror is being harassed,
Florida will provide asylum. I'm sure he'd be welcomed and appreciated.
This really is the upside down world.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Asylum is the word. From assault. You know what? There
you go. That word, it kind of seems a little
silly when you're talking about state to state. Of course,
you don't seek asylum. But Robes, he used that in
such a way that he's going to need protection from somebody. Yes.
I don't know how much scarier this is going to
get for him. I don't know where he is, but
(27:10):
the affiliates, I mean, they know him. They know who
he is, and they know his name. It's probably just
a matter of time.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
I was just going to say, it's a matter of time,
and he is almost certainly going to require some sort
of security. I would imagine he would need that and
want that, and to that point, someone has already set
up a campaign for him to get.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Funds for him, and it is steadily... increasing.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Every time I check back, the number gets more. At first,
it's GiveSendGo is the site where they're creating this fund
for this holdout juror. But they initially had said they
wanted to raise $ 100, 000, quickly surpassed that. Now they're saying
the goal is $ 150, 000. This is as of this recording.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
On Monday. But last time I checked it, it was $ 114, 000.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
But every time I check it, it goes up by
at least 1,000 every hour. So this is going to
keep growing and growing. And look, organizers say that they're
raising the money for this holdout juror to cover, quote,
the juror's security, attorneys. and lost wages if he faces
fallout over his role in the mistrial. So they're already
(28:15):
anticipating he may need legal fees, he needs security.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
For what? What does he need? Why are we going
after him? Because we don't like how he voted?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
It's terrible.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
We're going after, this is... It's awful.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
It's a character assassination.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
It is.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
And it's continuing.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Like, if you look up each day, there are more headlines.
They're looking into his background. And look, we don't know
anything about this guy. We haven't looked for his name.
I don't even want to know. We shouldn't know. It
just seems wrong. It seems illegal to be outing somebody
and then subjecting them to online, not just criticism, but
(28:54):
absolute assault. Truly, I think that's the correct word. Character assassination,
for sure. Because We or some people don't like his verdict.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Why won't people just, I know this is, people have
their opinions. Why can't, nothing is accepted as legitimate anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
You know what, that's such a good point. From our elections.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Thank you. Any outcome of a trial, nothing is, we
don't have faith in anything or anybody. And babe, this
is another, how are you going to get people to,
people are going to be leaving town to get a void,
to avoid jury duty. Nobody likes it anyway, but who
wants to do this?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
You give up five weeks of your life.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Come on, man.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And now you've got this to deal with, the aftermath
of this? this. If you don't vote the way the
majority does, if you don't vote the way America thinks
you should, you're going to be subjected to cancel culture
on an epic level when you are just truly a
private citizen.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That is unfair. These aren't public figures.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
And certainly the jurors have chosen the spotlight.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I don't fault them, but they're getting publicity and they're
getting attention.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
And it isn't even as if this juror was looking
for it or seeking it. It doesn't seem like he
was grandstanding so that he could get some sort of
attention placed on him.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
He has not spoken once. And I don't know if
he should, to be honest.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I mean, he might have to defend himself at some point.
He might have to have a representative put a statement
out on his behalf. Because Robes, 11 people are coming
out and giving their story about what happened in there.
And every single one of them have taken an taken
an opportunity to attack this guy so they're telling the
world that's already pissed about the verdict many that are
(30:35):
actually guys you should be pissed because it wasn't fair
and he's the reason not just had a different opinion
oh no no no he doesn't understand the law he
wouldn't follow the law even kevin reddington accused the guy
of perjury because he went in there and swore that
he could follow the judge's instructions remember.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
That how can you get inside someone's head You cannot.
That's the point. This is not a provable accusation. It
just isn't.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
At all. How far does this go, baby?
Speaker 1 (31:03):
It's not over.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
How far does this go? And look, I'm not calling
anybody on that jury racist at all, but it made
more sense. We all see. Some people heard it was
a man and thought, oh, of course, it's the man
who can't understand what a woman is going through. I
don't And they said that made sense to them based
on their experience as a woman.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
That's what I thought.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
And I have an experience as a black man that
also informs me about what this was.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
And that's what we all need to acknowledge.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
That's all. Everybody has a different experience and is looking
at this differently. But man, Robes, it's kind of wild.
It's kind of wild, but.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Gail.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
That was an honest moment.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
It was.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It was very, it was hilarious. I have to say,
it really threw off. She made a comment at the
end of it still. She wasn't quite over it.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
You sure he's black?
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Oh, this brother. Well, no, it's not done. And again,
there's a motion out there to still get an acquittal,
I think.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Is there still a motion out there to get this
juror kicked off or something?
Speaker 3 (32:09):
There's several motions going on, but there's a hearing scheduled
for the end of September.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Okay. All right. We'll keep an eye on you folks,
but always appreciate you spending a little time with us.
I'm T.J., That's Robes. I'll call myself soon.
All right.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. Stop us if you've heard this one before.
Eleven white jurors and one black juror walk into a bar.
We should have known this wasn't going to go well.
And with that, everybody, welcome to the show. I'm TJ.
That's Rogues. The world has gone crazy. The juror, the
lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial is black.
(00:23):
Gayle King can't believe it. MAGA is running to the
defense of the black man. The world, like you just
said before we started, it's like we're in the upside down.
What's going on?
Speaker 3 (00:33):
The liberals are all backing the 11 white jurors and
finding dirt, like digging up dirt on this black juror.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
And it just feels like what you.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Would expect certain sides of the fence, who they'd be,
what team they'd be on. Everyone's all mixed up from
what you would typically expect to happen.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Robes, you have... conservatives coming to the defense of a
black man against 11 white jurors and liberals.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Yes, all over whether or not a white woman intended
to murder her three white babies.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
And Gayle King almost fell out of the chair.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Where do we begin? I'm not sure where we're supposed
to start. Actually, let me get your reaction, and both
of us here, our reaction to the two big parts
of the story that developed late last week that we
did get word that, yes, the lone holdout is black,
and then Gayle King's reaction to that caused certainly a
stir and a debate to go. So, my first question
to you, your reaction just when we found out that
(01:39):
the lone holdout was a black man. What was your reaction?
Speaker 1 (01:41):
For me, it.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
I guess I was a little surprised, but I didn't
have the same reaction that maybe you had, certainly not
the one that Gayle King had. But we had had
a conversation about who we thought this holdout juror was
while the deliberations were going on, and I was leaning
towards a man. I felt like this obviously was a man.
I didn't know what the racial makeup of the jury was,
so I wasn't even thinking race. I was only thinking gender.
(02:06):
And so to hear it was a black man, I
guess that didn't surprise me because I just feel like,
Given what I know from you and what I've known
just in covering events, obviously I could see a black
man being distrustful of the system, being distrustful of police,
being distrustful of the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
So to me, it wouldn't be that.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Surprising that he would demand to know beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if you can't, it's just not shocking to me
that he was trying to then, with.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
All of that, still uphold the law and hold someone accountable.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Okay, so- Your reaction to him being a black guy,
your reaction though to now Gayle King's reaction. We'll get
into it if you haven't seen it, you probably already have,
but your reaction to her flat out being surprised in
the middle of an interview when she learned the guy
was a black guy.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
I honestly didn't understand it at first.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
I really didn't because I wasn't sure, am I looking
at this through a racial lens or am I looking
at this through a political ideology? I wasn't sure where
she was coming from and you filled in the Blanks.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
A little bit for me because I don't ever want
to assume.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
As a white person, I don't claim to know the
experience of or the lens through which you're seeing things.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
That's funny. No, and that was probably the problem in
the jury room, right? My reaction when I found out
I was a black guy, so much else made sense.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
You were like, of course.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
It all made sense. We'll get into that, but ropes.
We had issue from the jump. of deliberations with how
they were treating this juror. We didn't understand. They were
trying to get him kicked off, and it went on,
and then the attacks came after. We didn't understand. Found
out he was a black guy. I was like, oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
And the interesting thing is you were, in our podcast
and certainly behind the scenes, very much rallying in the
defense of this juror. Well before we knew the race
of this juror, you kept saying this feels like bullying.
This feels like they don't like what he thinks. So
they're trying to say he did something procedurally wrong or
(04:15):
legally wrong to try and get him and pressure him
and get the judge to pressure him and get the
world to pressure him to think like they think. And
you thought that was anti-American. Really, that it flew in
the face of our judicial system and how it's set up.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
But our system is set up for him to have
that opinion. It's also set up that he doesn't have
to explain that to everybody else. It's also, as long
as he's following the rule, he didn't do anything wrong.
He was deliberating. So we were strongly defending this guy.
I was in shock at how the system was even
allowing these other 11 to almost beat up on this
(04:50):
guy and tell on him. They're trying to get that
guy kicked off, and it seemed like Robes, the only
thing is, he won't agree with us so we can
all go home. We didn't like it at the beginning.
Tell me now he's a black man. I go, oh, okay.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
So please explain why that makes so much sense to you.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Because I've been in that room my whole career. And Robes,
this is a moment that you can just imagine that
you have 11 white people that don't have any choice
or any options in the matter to get this one
black guy to do their bidding. Imagine how that feels.
(05:28):
I know how it feels in a room like this.
I have not been on a jury deliberation, nothing like this.
But every single morning for eight years, hey, good morning, America, baby,
I went into a room where I was essentially the
only black man in a room full of about 20
to 30 white people. And I had countless instances where
(05:48):
I had an opinion that was not valued because those
20 or 30 white people had the same experiences. and
the same opinion. So therefore, if we all agree, you
must be wrong. He's sitting in that room with, yes,
there are racial dynamics here that's going to be hard
(06:11):
for some people to understand, but it'll be easy for
black folks to. There is now Robes, we can't make
him do this. So what are we going to do?
We don't respect him. Get on board. They actually tried
to get him kicked off.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
They called him arrogant. They said he didn't grasp the law.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Now you're talking about his intelligence. Some things started coming
out that just didn't make sense, baby, until you told
me he was black. And I go, oh, he's arrogant.
He doesn't grasp the law. What was he not getting?
I hope he can sleep well at night. He wasted
this time. He had... That's the thing, babe. Now they're
attacking him. He is being doxxed to a certain degree, ropes.
(06:52):
They're going after his background. What did... Three kids are dead,
and they're telling me this guy's a problem because he
didn't pay his rent. They literally are looking up his
rental history and applying... And they're attacking him, babe. And
it feels awful.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
They're pointing to an allegation and an arrest where there
was never a conviction, which, by the way, you can
be arrested and be.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
a juror.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
So they're like, they're looking to see whether or not
he lied on his juror application. And look, plenty of
people have been arrested for no reason whatsoever or have
been proven to be innocent. The charges were dropped against him,
but they're bringing up, they're looking for anything to make
him look like a bad seed.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
A bad dude. We've seen, because you didn't do what
we told you to do. How dare you black man
have power over this proceeding? Rose, he had power over
the proceeding. And I don't know what his convictions are, babe.
He might absolutely believe what a lot of America believes
(07:54):
is that this woman should be in prison.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Yes, and there have been plenty of op-eds from conservatives
who I've already seen. The Washington Post actually had one
just put out saying he was the only one who
got it right. So a lot of people do believe that,
and it has become a party, a partisan issue.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
Let me ask you this. Explain Gayle King's reaction to me.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
I see it as she had an idea already in
her head, and that flew in the face of it.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
She thought maybe it was a MAGA sympathizer, someone who
was conservative, because we mentioned it had been on political lines.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
That's all the debate has been, right? And publicly, conservatives
are like, you crazy liberals. I think there was an
easy assumption to make, and she probably did have in
her head. Well, yeah, it's a white guy. Some white
guy's holding everything up.
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Some Republican white guy.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Black people aren't supposed to think a certain way according
to certain people. We're supposed to be Democrats. We're supposed
to vote a certain way. We're supposed to eat a
certain thing. We're supposed to like a certain music. We
fit into categories. And yes, even black people put each
other in those categories sometimes. And she was shocked that
this guy would be so dead set, Robes, in what
(09:14):
he believed, that he would still keep that vote. Somebody
that convicted in what they believe must be some hardcore
conservative over there holding things up. It's a black man?
Speaker 1 (09:28):
She said, I need to sit with that? Is that
what she said?
Speaker 2 (09:32):
We have it in here. Where's the exact... So they're
going back and forth. There it is. She says to
the juror, is the holdout juror a black man? The
juror responds, yes. Gail says, a black man is a
holdup juror? Whoa, I have to sit with that for
just a second. Well, it was a funny, honest moment
because she was literally thrown off guard.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
It is so interesting, though. It was a genuine moment,
as you pointed out. But we all that's the point
at which all of us. us could ask ourselves, wow,
we have ideas in our head.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
We label people. We make assumptions all the time.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
And all of a sudden, when that assumption is proven
to be wrong, it takes a second.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And look, this is a learning, a learning, teachable moment.
In a lot of ways. But unfortunately, this black holdout
juror is paying the price.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Rogues, is he ever going to speak? Should he speak?
Does he need to speak? Does he want to show
his face? I don't know. But, Rogues, the way he's
being attacked before and now after the trial, it's just
not fair. I'm not defending. I don't know his background.
I'm not defending anything. I don't know what he's done.
But the system told me he was a legit juror.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
I'm done.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Nothing else to talk about. He's a legit juror. And
y'all don't like it? Okay.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
And we also learned a little bit more that it
wasn't just 11 to 1 initially. This was interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
And it wasn't as if this holdout juror refused to budge.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
This was interesting.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
So there were some new details that came out.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
First of all, the initial juror split, more than one
person wanted to find.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Lindsay Clancy guilty. That's huge.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Yeah, the split was 8-2-2, correct? So 8 not guilty, 8.
Two guilty and two that were undecided, and they just
weren't sure where they fit. And after they were going
back and forth and back and forth, he ended up,
he initially wanted first degree murder. He came down.
Speaker 1 (11:27):
We don't know if it was to second degree or
to manslaughter, but.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
He did agree to change because he watched the video, correct?
Speaker 1 (11:34):
A video changed his mind?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Some interview that Lindsay Clancy had. Now, Robes, isn't that,
Isn't that telling and significant?
Speaker 1 (11:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
If the judge had heard that, if anybody hears that
this guy, wait a minute, he went from first degree
down to manslaughter, maybe, or even down to second degree,
it means he was willing to be open to change
his mind to some degree. Is that right?
Speaker 3 (11:55):
Yeah. I mean, the quote from the other jurors were,
we watched video of the interview with Clancy, and after that, he,
the holdout juror, replied that it wasn't murder in the
first degree, and that's where we saw his doubt.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
That sounds like, to me, they saw an opening.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Ooh.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
There you go.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Thank you, baby. He moved.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
He changed his mind. We can keep changing his mind.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Okay, but the way she put it, that's where we
saw doubt. So, therefore, if there's some doubt, they used that,
it seemed.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
And that's not fair.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
It's not, baby.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
That's not fair.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
I actually think that shows that he was critically thinking
and willing to keep his mind open when he decided, okay,
after I see this, I don't think it was first-degree.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
That's how the system's supposed to work.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
He re-evaluated a piece of video and then came to
a different conclusion that actually came closer to agreeing with
some of the other jurors. Isn't that what the process
is supposed to be like? But then he gets to say,
this is as far as I'm willing to go. And
then if they can't come to an agreement, what's supposed
to happen is a mistrial.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Isn't that something nobody's getting on to the, should he
come out and say, yeah, they walked in the room,
they were all not guilty and they never budged. They
weren't willing to negotiate. They weren't willing to, right?
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
Eight of them walked in and said not guilty and
never changed their mind. He was willing to and now
he's the one being called out for not being a
good deliberator.
Speaker 4 (13:17):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
We did the age range. Some of the other interesting
nuggets here. The age range, 70 to 22. That's a
wide range.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
But I actually think that's good. That's good.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
You want to have, I mean, you want to have diversity.
You want to have diversity in age, experience, yes, in race,
all of that because everyone brings a different piece of
experience and a different lens through which they see the
world into that juror deliberation room.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
And that is what we're supposed to have happen, I
would argue.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
A lot of parents on the jury. That was interesting
that they'd come out as well. Robes, and I want
to get into this with you because I think a
lot of people, it's hard to, we don't want to
be in a position where some people are dismissive and, oh,
this is all about race. And this did become, quite frankly,
(14:04):
a big story about race. I was actually on Twitter,
on X, and just saw their news headline on the side,
and it said, Mistrial in Clancy Child Murder Case After
Black Jurors Hold Out. That was the headline. So here
we go. Rogue, did you think anything of it based
on your experience? Did race play, when you hear he's black,
(14:26):
you just say, okay, or what, seriously, from your lens
of what racial dynamics play into that?
Speaker 3 (14:43):
I initially didn't think anything, but I understand as a
white person why white people would then say, oh, see,
he just refused to agree with us just because we're white. Like,
they could make that same argument. He didn't want to
go along with us because he wanted to be the
adversary or to be the, you know, the rubble rouser.
(15:06):
And they could have been dismissive of his legitimate... beliefs
his legitimate conclusions that he came to after critically evaluating
what he saw and they might have been dismissive of
it because they might have been viewing him through a
lens of race like oh he's just adversarial because we're
all white and he's black and he doesn't want to
(15:26):
agree with us and just to prove a point that
he doesn't have to he's not gonna and i could
see the white jurors looking at him.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Through that lens.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I am fascinated by this guy You know how hard
that is to do?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I cannot imagine. For seven days.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
To dig your heels.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
In for how many hours? 30-something hours of deliberations. They
didn't make it to 40?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
They made it to 40.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
That had to have been excruciating.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
We have, and again, you can see some things differently
because of the experiences you've had with me and seeing
how we have to navigate around the world. But even
before we were dating, and we've told the story publicly
a couple times without identifying the players. But, Rove, there's
nothing worse than the feeling of not being allowed to
(16:19):
have your own unique experience in this country. Because some
people don't understand what it does feel like on a
day-to-day basis to be black in America.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
Well, white people can't know what that feels like, period.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, there it is. Obviously, that's true. But there are
so many that don't see it that way because they
think our experience needs to be the same as theirs
through their lens. And that's the only one they can
see it through. And too often, white people win because
(16:52):
they're the ones in charge. Can't convince you, can't convince
you because.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
I'm... Because I don't have to.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
On the lower end of the totem pole.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
First of all.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
And I'm saying, yeah, the white folks aren't trying to
bring you along or convince you or... in any way,
try to have a genuine conversation where they're open to
your experience because they don't have to.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Don't have to be. And this was a rare occasion
where they had to. And they couldn't change his mind.
And they had no recourse in this matter that they
might have in a boardroom, on the city street, on
(17:32):
television and debate, whatever it may be, somewhere else. So, Robes,
I don't ever want to always hold my tongue because
I'm not mad at this woman and don't think she's
a bad person. But she had a really, really ugly
moment and that you were there for. When I have
(17:53):
never in my life been shot down more in having
a genuine opinion and feeling about something. And you were
standing right next to me when it happened, March 28th,
I believe it was, 2022? Two, yes. The night after
the Oscars.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
The Oscars, of course, where Will Smith slapped comedian and
host Chris Rock. And so you and we were about
to go on the air and you were talking about
what you were going to say because you were actually
being tasked with talking about this. We were there, we
(18:34):
were watching it. Two black men, you're a black man,
and you were sharing what you were going to say.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
Were you practicing what you were saying? Were you rehearsing
what you were saying?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
I think we might have just all been kind of
discussing it. We were just talking about it. Because this
was out there, it was four in the morning, right?
It was in LA.
Speaker 3 (18:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
So the ceremony just wrapped up. We were all a
little tired.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
We hadn't really slept. I don't think we slept at all.
None of us had.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
All of us a little punchy.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
We were all talking about what we experienced, and you
were talking about it, how you experienced it as a
black man. The first time a black producer was producing
the Oscars. You've got a black host who is hosting
the Oscars, and now you've got a black man who
is about to win Best Actor.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
And don't forget, we had D-Nice DJ there. It was
a black, this was a black Oscars.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
And so to have this very historic moment be clouded,
ruined by Will Smith, you had real feelings that a
white person would not understand. But the problem is there
is no acknowledgement of that by this other person. And
you were told that your experience was wrong, that your
(19:41):
reaction wasn't fair, and that what this white person experienced
with the people she was around completely outweighed how you
were feeling in the moment. And I believe she was
urging you not to say what you wanted to say
because you were wrong.
Speaker 2 (20:06):
This was one of the most difficult individual moments I
ever had at ABC. Because we were standing there, yes,
the three of us, but folks back in the studio,
like we were wired up at that time. We were
close to going on the air, but where we were
standing out there live in LA, that was 30 plus
(20:26):
folks on the set hearing all this. And I can
remember still only one of the black guy being on
that set besides me. But Rose, I could not believe the, Ignorance.
And I'm not calling the person stupid. I'm saying by
a lack of understanding of what they haven't experienced, to
(20:48):
actually tell me, a black man, that the way I
experienced that moment was not legit. It's not right. It's
not okay. You don't have a right to it, TJ.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
My jaw was dropped.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
The words were, no way. TJ, you are seeing it
all wrong and you are making it something that it's not.
A white woman told a black man that, not understanding
that I've been taught from birth, make sure you don't
do your dirty laundry out in front of white folks.
(21:24):
Don't fight in front of white people. Don't let them
see what's happening in the house. We know this. We've
taught this. There's something else we understand, Robes. You don't ever, ever, ever.
We had the first black Oscars. And this is the result.
We got two of the biggest black stars up there
fighting on stage. What that meant for all of us was, oh,
my God. It's the same reaction we had when Obama
(21:45):
was elected. Like, oh, no matter what you think, he
better not mess this up or we'll never have another
brother in there for 100 years. That is how we
see and react because, baby, we don't get these opportunities.
So when they come, we got to nail them or
it looks bad on all of us. And I got
a white woman. in front of 30 people, my colleagues,
(22:08):
telling me I don't have a black experience. Babe, that
was a tough moment. And so I have had several
moments at GMA like that, where you're trying to convince
30 people that they're wrong, or at least to get
them to see your experience as legitimate. But they don't
(22:30):
because it's not like theirs. And since 30 of them agree,
I have to be wrong. Can you imagine sitting in
that jury room? Baby.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
And it's so wild because you felt that way. Neither
one of us thought that that juror was black. And
yet you were, and I think because of your experience,
regardless of what his background was, what he looked like,
where he came from, you feel, I don't want to
say camaraderie, but you understand what it feels like to
be the only person who thinks differently from the others.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Immediately. Immediately. And I know how you get cut down.
You get shot down. What was the first thing? First thing,
disagreement with the person standing next to me. What was
the first thing? Nope, you're wrong. You're wrong. You're making
something that's not. Why you always got to make it that?
That was the reaction. Really, why did you see it
that way? Nobody asked that. Nobody ever asked that. We just,
(23:22):
we're used to this thing, baby.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
I'm right, you're wrong.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
We're used to it. Right, wrong, and we're outnumbered. And
we are outranked. So sit down and shut up. What?
Shut up and dribble? How many times black folks just
keep getting told to shut up, shut up, shut up?
We're used to this thing, baby. So, yes, if that
woman had said in front of me, yes, the lone
holdout was black, I would go, aha, I knew it.
(23:49):
This all makes sense now. That would have been my reaction.
Gail almost fell out the chair. Gail almost fell. You
know what? Gail has a different black experience than I do.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
That's a black man. It's different from hers. Oh my God.
And we love Gail. This is not a dishonest reaction.
Nothing's wrong with that. But it was funny to me.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
And look, we had said so many wonderful things and
we stand by our experience of watching Kevin Reddington do
his thing.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
But wow. Once you heard the quote, did he, did
he know he was black when he said this?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
It's a tough sentence.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Because if he knew he was black when he said it,
it would be way worse.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
He knew it was a man. Yes. So he probably did.
I have a hard time thinking he couldn't piece together
which one it was. He knew. I bet he knew.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
So obviously the jurors called him arrogant, said he struggled
to comprehend what the law was, said that he couldn't
cite any evidence to support his position.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
But Kevin Reddington said this. They were robbed by one man.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
He added at gunpoint.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
No, he did not.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Okay, sorry. I got a little worked up here.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
That was tough.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
I mean, that's the thing. They weren't... The system says
they weren't robbed. The system says... This is the system.
And he had a right to do what he wanted
to do, even though there were 11 other people pressuring him.
I don't know if I could have. Nah, I probably
would have. But I don't know. You know how hard
that was?
Speaker 1 (25:30):
I know you would have held your ground.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I mean, if you really believe it.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
I know you would have.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Why wouldn't he have? And aren't some seeing him as
a guardian angel looking over those kids? That's how he's
being regarded in some circles. And the other side is
seeing him as what?
Speaker 3 (25:45):
As someone who robbed... Lindsay Clancy of the treatment she
deserves or of the outcome she deserves or who was
unwilling to acknowledge that postpartum psychosis is real. So look,
it's also interesting we talked about the reactions and yes,
it's now been this weird reversal of support that you
(26:05):
wouldn't expect. But even more so, this one black holdout
juror has a champion tweeting for him.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
This is the weirdest story ever.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
And it's the most unlikely story supporter you could imagine.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
This is hilarious.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
His tweet reads as follows.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
A man objected to allowing a woman to kill her
three young kids and get away with it. So NBC
is trying to smear that juror whose identity should be protected.
Another low for legacy media. If the juror is being harassed,
Florida will provide asylum. I'm sure he'd be welcomed and appreciated.
This really is the upside down world.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Asylum is the word. From assault. You know what? There
you go. That word, it kind of seems a little
silly when you're talking about state to state. Of course,
you don't seek asylum. But Robes, he used that in
such a way that he's going to need protection from somebody. Yes.
I don't know how much scarier this is going to
get for him. I don't know where he is, but
(27:10):
the affiliates, I mean, they know him. They know who
he is, and they know his name. It's probably just
a matter of time.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
I was just going to say, it's a matter of time,
and he is almost certainly going to require some sort
of security. I would imagine he would need that and
want that, and to that point, someone has already set
up a campaign for him to get.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Funds for him, and it is steadily... increasing.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Every time I check back, the number gets more. At first,
it's GiveSendGo is the site where they're creating this fund
for this holdout juror. But they initially had said they
wanted to raise $ 100, 000, quickly surpassed that. Now they're saying
the goal is $ 150, 000. This is as of this recording.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
On Monday. But last time I checked it, it was $ 114, 000.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
But every time I check it, it goes up by
at least 1,000 every hour. So this is going to
keep growing and growing. And look, organizers say that they're
raising the money for this holdout juror to cover, quote,
the juror's security, attorneys. and lost wages if he faces
fallout over his role in the mistrial. So they're already
(28:15):
anticipating he may need legal fees, he needs security.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
For what? What does he need? Why are we going
after him? Because we don't like how he voted?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
It's terrible.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
We're going after, this is... It's awful.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
It's a character assassination.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
It is.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
And it's continuing.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Like, if you look up each day, there are more headlines.
They're looking into his background. And look, we don't know
anything about this guy. We haven't looked for his name.
I don't even want to know. We shouldn't know. It
just seems wrong. It seems illegal to be outing somebody
and then subjecting them to online, not just criticism, but
(28:54):
absolute assault. Truly, I think that's the correct word. Character assassination,
for sure. Because We or some people don't like his verdict.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Why won't people just, I know this is, people have
their opinions. Why can't, nothing is accepted as legitimate anymore.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
You know what, that's such a good point. From our elections.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
Thank you. Any outcome of a trial, nothing is, we
don't have faith in anything or anybody. And babe, this
is another, how are you going to get people to,
people are going to be leaving town to get a void,
to avoid jury duty. Nobody likes it anyway, but who
wants to do this?
Speaker 1 (29:33):
You give up five weeks of your life.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Come on, man.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And now you've got this to deal with, the aftermath
of this? this. If you don't vote the way the
majority does, if you don't vote the way America thinks
you should, you're going to be subjected to cancel culture
on an epic level when you are just truly a
private citizen.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That is unfair. These aren't public figures.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
And certainly the jurors have chosen the spotlight.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
I don't fault them, but they're getting publicity and they're
getting attention.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
And it isn't even as if this juror was looking
for it or seeking it. It doesn't seem like he
was grandstanding so that he could get some sort of
attention placed on him.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
He has not spoken once. And I don't know if
he should, to be honest.
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I mean, he might have to defend himself at some point.
He might have to have a representative put a statement
out on his behalf. Because Robes, 11 people are coming
out and giving their story about what happened in there.
And every single one of them have taken an taken
an opportunity to attack this guy so they're telling the
world that's already pissed about the verdict many that are
(30:35):
actually guys you should be pissed because it wasn't fair
and he's the reason not just had a different opinion
oh no no no he doesn't understand the law he
wouldn't follow the law even kevin reddington accused the guy
of perjury because he went in there and swore that
he could follow the judge's instructions remember.
Speaker 1 (30:52):
That how can you get inside someone's head You cannot.
That's the point. This is not a provable accusation. It
just isn't.
Speaker 2 (31:01):
At all. How far does this go, baby?
Speaker 1 (31:03):
It's not over.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
How far does this go? And look, I'm not calling
anybody on that jury racist at all, but it made
more sense. We all see. Some people heard it was
a man and thought, oh, of course, it's the man
who can't understand what a woman is going through. I
don't And they said that made sense to them based
on their experience as a woman.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
That's what I thought.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
And I have an experience as a black man that
also informs me about what this was.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
And that's what we all need to acknowledge.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
That's all. Everybody has a different experience and is looking
at this differently. But man, Robes, it's kind of wild.
It's kind of wild, but.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Gail.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
That was an honest moment.
Speaker 4 (31:47):
It was.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It was very, it was hilarious. I have to say,
it really threw off. She made a comment at the
end of it still. She wasn't quite over it.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
You sure he's black?
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Oh, this brother. Well, no, it's not done. And again,
there's a motion out there to still get an acquittal,
I think.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Is there still a motion out there to get this
juror kicked off or something?
Speaker 3 (32:09):
There's several motions going on, but there's a hearing scheduled
for the end of September.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Okay. All right. We'll keep an eye on you folks,
but always appreciate you spending a little time with us.
I'm T.J., That's Robes. I'll call myself soon.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.