Three children are dead.
Their mother strangled them.
Yet somehow, the story has shifted away from the three little children who lost their lives and toward the women who sat on the jury.
Why is the jury room becoming the real courtroom, where the battle over innocence and guilt was actually fought?
Three white women came forward to publicly condemn the lone holdout juror, the one man who refused to join their collective decision. After receiving backlash, another juror, a man, was brought forward to criticize him as well.
And I have to ask:
What happened to the three babies?
Where is the outrage for them?
Where is the focus on the children who were actually murdered?
Instead, we are watching a media narrative develop around the women who wanted the same verdict, the juror who wouldn’t give it to them, and the battle over what happened inside that jury room.
The mother becomes the victim.
The husband is suggested as the real culprit.
The lone juror becomes the villain for refusing to go along.
And the three children, the three innocent lives at the center of this entire case, become almost an afterthought.
Maybe that’s the uncomfortable question nobody wants to ask:
Were three murdered children simply not controversial enough to keep the ratings going?
Because apparently, the jury-room conflict is more compelling than the graves.
And if there is a broader political movement trying to use this case to undermine confidence in the jury system, that deserves scrutiny too.
And the DSA is sitting back and licking their chops.
c 2026 Chu The Cud
All Rights Reserved
Chu The Cud 