A juror who voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy sensationally admitted that she changed her vote after being swayed during hostile deliberations with ‘big personalities’ in the room.
The anonymous juror, who is the fourth to come forward following the murder trial, told CBS Boston that she had not kept up with the high-profile case before being summoned to court in Massachusetts.
She said her initial stance was to convict Clancy – and despite eventually voting to acquit the killer mother, the juror admitted she ‘maybe still believes’ Clancy should go to prison.
The juror said: ‘Originally, I felt that she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it.’
‘Maybe I still believe that [Clancy is guilty], in a certain way,’ she admitted.
Clancy’s murder case for killing her three young children ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked 11-1, with one holdout who refused to acquit her.
The anonymous juror said that the lone holdout who refused to vote not guilty clashed with their fellow jurors almost immediately, and that ‘the majority of the room was trying to sway that person from the very beginning.’
She said she will ‘defend that individual’ for standing his ground during the tense deliberations, which allegedly included shouting that could be heard from other rooms inside the court.
The fourth juror spoke out soon after three others, foreperson Roni Carlson, Kellie Farina and Paula Devlin, came forward to publicly condemn the holdout who refused to change his vote.
Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces a retrial after a jury of nine women and three men were unable to agree on whether she was guilty of murder or manslaughter
Clancy was charged with murder after strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan in 2023. She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and her trial ended in a mistrial last week
Carlson claimed that the juror, a man who has not been named, ‘admitted he had reasonable doubt’ about Clancy’s guilt by reason of insanity, but he remained unmoved by the arguments with other jurors.
Could deaths have been prevented?
Hi, I’m Rachel Sharp, US Editor of The Crime Desk.
In our bonus podcast episode, we examine Lindsay Clancy’s complex medical history and explore the questions at the heart of this case. Click here, subscribe and listen.
<!- – ad: https://mads.dailymail.co.uk/v8/de/truecrimeuk/none/article/other/mpu_factbox.html?id=mpu_factbox_1 – ->
She said she was ‘so excited’ to acquit Clancy, before the holdout juror insisted, ‘but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty,’ Carlson recalled to NBC Boston.
The anonymous juror told CBS News that despite the national attention and public debate sparked by Clancy’s trial, she was unaware of her case before her jury service because she ‘doesn’t watch the news.’
She described herself as the ‘perfect juror’ for Clancy’s trial, because she does not have children of her own to bias her views, and was reviewing the facts of the case for the first time in the courtroom.
The juror said she initially wanted to convict Clancy, and said she was left devastated by the evidence put forward about how Clancy strangled her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, with exercise bands inside her Massachusetts home.
The worst of the evidence she was forced to review, the juror said, was audio of a 911 call made by Clancy’s husband Patrick when he discovered the bodies of his children.
‘I will never be the same after that 911 call,’ the juror said. The audio was played behind closed doors inside the courtroom and has not been released to the public.
She said she only learned about sick ‘conspiracy theories’ accusing Patrick of murdering his children and framing Clancy, and said those peddling the claims would feel differently if they had also heard the 911 call.
‘If these people could have heard that visceral, blood-curdling scream,’ she said. ‘It was horrifying.’
The anonymous juror said she was left devastated by the evidence in the case, including audio of a 911 call made by Clancy’s husband Patrick when he discovered the bodies of his children
Jury foreperson Roni Carlson previously told NBC Boston on Tuesday she was persuaded to find the mother-of-three not guilty by reason of insanity
While the holdout juror who refused to acquit Clancy was criticized by Carlson, Farina and Devlin, the anonymous woman said their claims that he was alone in his stance are not true.
‘This standalone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side, so I’m going to kind of defend that individual,’ she said.
‘There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions.’
She said that her views on Clancy’s guilt evolved throughout the deliberations, as she initially wanted to convict her.
‘I think this was a woman who was not mentally healthy, she was in the throes of a significant mental crisis,’ the juror said.
‘I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn’t see her way out, and this was the only option.’
Ultimately, the juror said she voted to acquit Clancy because the prosecution failed to convince her of their case, and they did not produce a ‘smoking gun’ to send Clancy away.
‘There was not a single moment throughout that presentation of that case that you could say, ‘Oh yep, 100 percent I’m certain she did it,” she recalled. ‘There is too much gray area.’
Reddington and Clancy in court as Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial last week
It comes after Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington spoke on Good Morning America earlier this week, where he pleaded with President Donald Trump to consider pardoning Clancy, describing her as a good person.
Reddington said: ‘I’d like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case.
‘Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon.’
Reddington also described her as being ‘intelligent’ and ‘hardworking,’ while describing the strong bond he has with Clancy.
‘I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She’s such a wonderful, wonderful person.’
George Stephanopoulos questioned the lawyer about his remarks at the end of the trial in which Reddington said he ‘crushed’ the prosecution, asking if he regretted them.
He added: ‘I don’t regret saying it at all. I think that the defense was very strong and I think it went in very well.
‘I think I perhaps could have been a little more circumspect dealing with [prosecutor] Tim Cruz, and instead of saying I crushed him, I could I have said I did a good job.’
Reddington then said that he was open to reaching a deal with Cruz, the District Attorney, so that Clancy did not need to go through another trial.
‘I’m willing to listen to Tim [Cruz]. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. I hope, however, after this trial, that he would revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides,’ he added.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login