The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case has kept the debate over her guilt as divisive as ever, with plenty of Americans siding with the 11 jurors who wanted her found not guilty by reason of insanity.But unlike those 11 jurors, BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock believes that the lone juror who defied the others was the only one pursuing real justice — especially after seeing interviews of the women who sided with the defense.“Not sure if rogue is the right word ... but every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn’t sit anymore,” one female juror told NBC News, speaking about the male juror who refused to fall in line.“He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan’s instruction. He actually said one day in the end, ‘Well, why don’t we have the judge come in and read it again?’ And we were like, ‘No, we have it in front of us. We don’t need that,’” she continued.“And we would highlight it and you know, so and so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” she added.“You just heard it,” Whitlock says. “Not a host, not a pundit, not a podcaster, a juror.”He calls the “rogue” juror a “mighty good man.”“That was not a flaw in the holdout. That was the assignment,” he says.“The fight in that room was never ‘did she do it?’ The fight was whether a room full of adults would let ‘she snapped’ and ‘she loved them’ erase what she did. Nine women, three men, a majority that wanted a hall pass,” he continues.“One man who would not sign it. And when the case deadlocked, the cameras did not hunt the truth. They hunted him. ‘Arrogant, wouldn’t interact, wouldn’t budge,’” he mocks, “‘Hardest time getting off the fact that she viciously killed her children.’”“Of course he did. That fact is the case. Empathy can be holy. Empathy can also be toxic. In that jury room, it went toxic,” he says.“The loudest empathy in those interviews did not land on three dead kids. It landed on the woman who killed them,” he adds, before playing a clip of a different juror.“We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she’s admitting that. We’re trying to figure out did she know right from wrong at that time? And with everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children from her journals to her mother-in-law,” the female juror said.“Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped,” she added.“Hey, lady, love is not a defense to strangulation. A mother’s tears do not untie a ligature. ‘She snapped’ is not a verdict. It is a slogan. And when a juror treats the bodies as the obstacle to her preferred ending, she has already chosen a side, and it is not the children’s,” Whitlock says.“They mocked the holdout for staging with the bodies. They should have thanked him. He was the only adult in the room who refused to negotiate with a corpse count,” he adds.Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.