She begged her husband to follow the trial. Now he’s sleeping upstairs.

Friday’s Rush Hour became Women’s Day.

Not officially. Nobody from management approved this. I simply decided that after spending a week hearing women on social media explain the Lindsay Clancy case to me, the least I could do was listen.

And ladies, I listened.

Boy, did I listen.

The Clancy trial had ended in a mistrial after seven days of deliberations, but there was one final twist. For days, women online had been absolutely certain they knew who was holding up that jury.

A man.

“I know it’s a man.”

“It’s got to be a man.”

One woman was so confident that she proposed killing all the men. Yes, all of them. She acknowledged that we’d lose “a couple good men,” but explained that sometimes sacrifices must be made in war.

Another proposed a slightly more moderate public policy: if she became president, every woman would be permitted to kill one man per year without consequences.

I would like to thank her for showing restraint.

Then came the news.

The lone holdout juror apparently was a man.

Oh, Lord.

Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, inadvertently revealed it while arguing with the judge over how the deadlocked jury was being instructed. Reddington wanted the judge to be more forceful about reasonable doubt. The exasperated judge finally asked what Reddington expected him to do — “Get a brass band?”

Somewhere on social media, thousands of women immediately began looking for tubas.

Now, we still didn’t know how the other 11 jurors intended to vote or exactly what was happening inside that jury room. I wasn’t going to pretend we did. But if this one gentleman was standing between Lindsay Clancy and an acquittal, there may be people who want to thank him for his service.

The prosecution can retry her. There could conceivably be a plea agreement. This case isn’t over.

But I had another mission Friday.

I wanted women to know that I hear them.

I am listening.

In fact, I declared myself a bridge for the women of America — a Golden Gate Bridge, if you will — allowing some of these women to cross from the land of insanity back into the land of the sane, assuming they’re willing to make the journey.

And some of these ladies have quite a journey ahead of them.

One woman explained that men were angry about the Clancy case because they thought they had finally found a woman they could legitimately hate. According to her theory, men hated Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris “for no good reason,” then thought Lindsay Clancy would finally give them permission to hate a woman without being called misogynists.

Then women started watching the trial, she said, and discovered that Patrick Clancy probably killed the children.

What?

Another woman wanted to know why men weren’t standing up for Lindsay. She said the evidence increasingly showed Patrick did it and suggested that men defending him must themselves support abusive behavior.

What?

Remember, these are not claims established in court. They are theories being confidently delivered into cellphones by people watching the same trial everybody else is watching.

But I promised to listen.

So I listened.

Fortunately, we had music to help us through the journey. It was Mark Ronson’s birthday, which gave us “Uptown Funk.” Beyoncé was celebrating a birthday too. Then listeners began suggesting some wonderfully appropriate bumper music for our afternoon of female enlightenment: “Evil Woman” by ELO and “Black Magic Woman” by Santana.

I wasn’t making the suggestions.

Women were.

I was merely listening.

And then came the woman whose story should be preserved for husbands everywhere.

At first, she explained, her husband didn’t understand why she was so invested in the Clancy trial. She watched it every day and kept asking him why he wasn’t paying attention.

So her husband did what husbands occasionally do despite generations of evidence warning us against it.

He listened to his wife.

He started following the trial.

So far, so good.

Unfortunately, after watching the case, this man made a catastrophic error: he formed his own opinion.

Not her opinion.

His.

She didn’t like it.

He is now sleeping upstairs in the bunk room.

Gentlemen, study this case carefully because it has nothing to do with Lindsay Clancy. This is one of the oldest traps known to mankind.

“Why aren’t you interested in this?”

You become interested.

“Why aren’t you paying attention?”

You start paying attention.

Then comes the final question:

“What do you think?”

DO NOT ANSWER.

The correct response is that you are still reviewing the evidence. Tell her deliberations are ongoing. Request additional time. Ask whether an alternate husband is available.

Whatever you do, do not reach a verdict.

This poor man did everything requested of him. He paid attention, became invested in the case and developed an informed opinion.

And for his efforts, he has apparently been transferred to alternate housing.

There is a lesson here somewhere.

Friday began with women proposing the elimination of the male population because they were certain a man was holding up the Clancy jury. It continued with theories about men, misogyny, abuse, Patrick Clancy and why other men weren’t speaking loudly enough.

By the end, I had heard enough to know one thing for certain.

I am still listening.

I am still your bridge.

But gentlemen, if your wife asks why you haven’t been following the Lindsay Clancy trial, learn from the man in the bunk room.

Tell her you’re waiting for the retrial.

— Bo Snerdley