“He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched the video of the interview,” the female juror told NBC 10 Boston in an interview with two other women jury members.

“I started filling out forms, I was so excited,” the woman said.

“There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”

One of the three, was named Paula and is a former government contractor. Another, Kelly, is a chef in Plymouth, and the foreperson, Ronnie, is a retired fifth grade special needs teacher.

The jurors called the holdout “arrogant” for refusing to go along with the rest.

One of the jurors told the outlet, the “prosecution didn’t show enough compassion.”

“I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” she said.

“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother … I found it to be biased.”

The foreperson said all the witnesses and evidence “proved that she loved her children … so she had to have snapped.”

The trio said they found Reddington to be “entertaining,” “arrogant,” “compassionate” and “funny.”

“His compassion for Lindsay was amazing,” one of the women said.

Plymouth Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday after the jurors sent out its third note that they were at an impasse.

The foreperson the day before notified the judge in a note, claiming that a certain juror refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt, forcing Sullivan to question each juror individually under oath. The judge also re-read the panelists his instructions on the law on reasonable doubt.

The jury — composed of nine women and three men — deliberated for roughly 38 hours over the course of seven days and notified the judge they were deadlocked for the first time on Tuesday, then again on Wednesday and for the last time on Friday.

Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, asked the jury to find the 36-year-old former nurse not criminally responsible on the grounds she was in the throes of severe postpartum psychosis and heard a voice commanding her to strangle her three kids, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, on Jan. 24, 2023.

But prosecutors claimed she carefully planned the killings and made up hearing the voice and experiencing a psychotic break to avoid criminal culpability.

The case has gripped the country, shining a light on postpartum and mental health issues and how the health care system cares for new mothers.

Reddington argued at trial that Clancy received negligent care from a psychiatrist and other providers who allegedly failed to properly diagnose her and who overmedicated her with 13 powerful psychiatric medications in the four months leading up to the slayings.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/08/us-news/lindsay-clancy-jury-was-ready-to-find-her-not-guilty-of-murder-until-one-man-refused-to-agree-jurors-reveal-i-was-so-excited/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123359)

Jesus CHRIST dude women are 180

But seriously chain them up in the kitchen and take away all their rights already JFC

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123370)

If they don't plea out I think the prosecution has a much better shot. They know what the defenses gameplan is now and won't hammer Clancy as hard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123754)

The problem with the prosecution if you actually watched the trial which you admitted you did not is that brow beating the jury with cumulative biased testimony about how heinous the crimes were was literally the ONLY ELEMENT of the CW case that did not EXPLICITLY corroborate the defense theory.

Which is why it's so surprising that we're still here. While I don't think the prosecution will ever win this case they certainly cannot do any worse than they did before. But no jury in Mass is going to convict. Which by the way the venire in Plymouth County is going to be over represented by older liberal white women no matter how you slice it. Big demographic advantage for Lindsay. You're just going to call 12 more jurors that think exactly like these people do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123772)

I have never understood the Chauvin truther bull case, just that conservatives tout it as a known thing. I have never seen the evidence exonerating him, and the evidence against him is fairly unimpeachable if taken at face value. Not calling you out individually at all I just have never grasped the Chauvin truther argument. So the ME lied that Floyd asphyxiated and we can prove he died of an overdose? I guess anything is possible. But I've never encountered the hard evidence for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123864)

"I think Chauvin is innocent because he didn't intend to kill Floyd and he and the other officers believed they were using reasonable and necessary force to arrest him"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123883)

Now I will fully go to bat against the federal charges for violating Floyd's civil rights. Total horseshit. Anyway just be fuckin honest you wouldn't want a cop flying out of nowhere crushing your trachea to death with his knee you retarded faggot just admit to this please. It was totally unnecessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123897)

I think Chauvin is innocent because he didn't intend to kill Floyd and he and the other officers believed they were using reasonable and necessary force to arrest him. I also think the "truther" argument is stupid but also counterproductive. It can be true that Floyd's fent levels contributed to his death or was even the primary cause while also believing Chauvin contributed. It's stupid to think it's likely Floyd would be dead even if he was never confronted by cops. Why not say "Chauvin had no reason to think Floyd was at a heightened risk because of how many drugs he was on."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123875)

Holy shit props to the guy that held strong despite several days of these shrews nagging.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123635)

There’s literally an iconic play/movie that such person is a hero.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123668)

It's why I have only argued that the entire premise is retarded on its face. "You see, under state law she's actually not guilty by reason of (((insanity)))."

How much fucking time and money was wasted by not simply dumping this woman in an unmarked grave?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123723)

Shouldn't they have to rely on the experts who testified at trial?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50123726)

i think that is highly improper and if i learned one of my jurors was positioning self as expert unratified by the court, i would THRUST for a mistrial

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50124325)

A woman who served as a juror in Lindsay Clancy's high-profile murder trial in Massachusetts provided a look at deliberations, saying there was too much doubt for her to reach a guilty verdict.

Clancy's trial ended in a mistrial on Friday due to a hung jury. According to a note sent to the judge by the foreperson, there was an 11-1 split among jurors.

A woman who was juror No. 5 spoke to WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex Tuesday, though she asked to remain anonymous.

"At the end of the day, there was so much doubt," the woman said. "The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."

Lindsay Clancy juror interview

The juror said that from the start of deliberations, the majority of the room was trying to sway the lone holdout.

"The majority of people, it doesn't matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and their belief from the beginning," she said. "The stand-alone 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 in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions."

The juror who spoke to WBZ-TV said at first, she believed Clancy should be found guilty and was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

"And maybe I still believe that in a certain way. I think that this is a woman who was not mentally healthy. She was someone who was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis," the juror said. "I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn't see her way out."

Juror will "never be the same" after hearing 911 call

Clancy's attorney attempted to have the holdout juror thrown off the jury because he argued they were refusing to apply the instruction of the law to reasonable doubt.

"At the end of the day, to not follow that reasonable doubt and to acknowledge that it's there, you morally and legally cannot convict somebody for that. And that was therefore a violation of her constitutional rights," the juror said. "Essentially, that is what we were there as a jury to do is to uphold that Constitution and give someone a fair trial of their peers. And I don't necessarily think she was getting that with that juror. It's not simply because of the fact that he had an opposing view or this person felt like she was guilty. It was the inability to back that up with any logic."

When it came to sitting on such a high-profile case, juror No. 5 said there were moments of devastating testimony. Particularly, she said hearing the 911 call from Patrick Clancy, Lindsay's now ex-husband, was something she will never forget. The call was played in the courtroom, but not broadcast during the trial.

"I will never be the same after that 911 call," she said. "After the trial, I saw all the conspiracy theories about how Patrick did it and that he somehow convinced Lindsay that she had done it when it was really him. All I could think was that if these people could have heard that visceral, blood-curdling scream, I don't think I could name a single actor or actress that could have performed that the way he did, and not that he performed it, but I will never be the same after that. It was horrifying. Just to imagine living through that and being the person to find your children in that scenario, it shakes you."

Prosecutors have not yet said if they will retry the case a second time after the mistrial.

____

This juror said there was doubt about whether she did it. That the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. She admitted to doing it. I mean holy shit what is wrong with this country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50124278)

Don't be mad that she's upholding our Constitutional Due Process right that guilt must be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50124314)

sounds like a social agenda rather than a verdict about a specific matter.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2099232371526738178

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5901687&forum_id=2#50134724)