Three jurors in child-killer Lindsay Clancy’s first trial are now speaking out publicly to attack the lone juror who refused to let her off the hook for brutally strangling her three children to death in 2023.
Despite it being an acknowledged fact that Clancy killed her three children, millions of women have glommed on to her as some sort of hero on account of her claim that the killings were a result of her alleged postpartum psychosis.
The three jurors who spoke with Boston station WBTS for an interview Tuesday appeared to also glom on to this narrative. All three expressed anger toward the lone male holdout who’d refused to vote to make Clancy not criminally liable for her children’s murders on account of reasonable doubt.
Watch the full interview below:
“He admitted he had reasonable doubt,” the jury foreperson, Roni Carlson, recalled. “I started filling out the forms. I was so excited… And then he said, ‘But I’m still not gonna say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.'”
The juror probably refused to play along because he knew such a verdict would have allowed Clancy to live in a psychiatric hospital for a few years before being released as a free person.
To Carlson’s credit, she was at least honest about what Clancy had done: “We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she’s admitting that.”
However, despite this admission, Carlson still believed that Clancy had somehow deeply “loved” her kids.
“We’re trying to figure out did she know right from wrong at that time,” she said. “Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped.”
Except the evidence suggests everything was premeditated:
Premeditating the murder is not snapping. Did they even listen to the evidence.
— Daisy (@Daisy03517931) September 9, 2026
Another pro-Clancy juror, Paula Devlin, called the lone holdout “arrogant.”
“He was very arrogant,” she said. “He just completely disregarded the information that [nurses on the jury] gave [about the many medications that Clancy had been on].”
A third juror, Kellie Farina, called out the lone holdout “rogue.”
“I’m 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, and we’d all go to the cart with the exhibits,” she said.
“He, I think, got up to the cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat,” she added. “He would not interact with us or try to understand.”
In fairness to the lone juror, there was little to understand except that his peers wanted to let a woman who strangled her three children to death off the hook.
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” Farina said, giving away the whole game plan.
This remark in particular prompted heavy pushback on social media:
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Yeah. Imagine NOT getting hung up on that. These harpies are demonic.
— Konrad Curze (@KonradCurze_8th) September 8, 2026
If it’s a fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children, then there isn’t a reasonable doubt. Just unreasonable women who refused to do what was necessary.
— BrianW (@bdubs1975) September 9, 2026
— CitrusSlimSuperdrol (@crypto_wallet4) September 9, 2026
A fourth juror who spoke anonymously to Boston station WBZ said she believed that the only way to get justice for Clancy’s children and husband was for Clancy to receive the mental help that “she desperately needed.”
“Eventually I just felt like the only way to get justice work for Cora, Dawson, and Callen, and Patrick, and her parents, and everyone else that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed,” the juror said.
This particular statement infuriated conservative commentator Matt Walsh.
“She’s openly admitting she disregarded the law,” he tweeted. “Jurors are not supposed to be making decisions based on those kinds of calculations. They were there to judge whether Clancy was guilty or not. Period. Their job was not the ensure the Clancy ‘gets the help she needs.’ What a farce.”
The juror here says she went into deliberations thinking Clancy was guilty but switched to not guilty because it was “the only way Lindsay would get the help she needs.” She’s openly admitting she disregarded the law. Jurors are not supposed to be making decisions based on those… https://t.co/UA5NIXnTmM
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 9, 2026
The lone holdout juror has, meanwhile, chosen to remain private and say nothing publicly for the time being.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Trump adviser says Fox just proved it’s ‘not friendly to MAGA’ with Bartiromo ouster - September 9, 2026
- Lindsay Clancy juror says lone holdout admitted ‘reasonable doubt’ — but still wouldn’t acquit - September 9, 2026
- Jemele Hill fan asks four words about her hair. That did not go well. - September 8, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.