News/Commentary

Male Clancy juror: Holdout couldn’t point to a ‘single piece of evidence’ for his vote

September 10, 2026 | | Print Article

One of the male jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case has begun speaking out, and critics say he’s exactly the type of soy boy they’d imagined him to be.

The juror, Nick Dargie, was one of two male jurors who’d wanted to let Clancy off the hook for strangling her three children to death. The third remaining male, a lone holdout, refused to let her off the hook, causing the first trial to conclude with a hung jury.

Speaking with ABC News, Dargie seemed almost apoplectic that Clancy wasn’t let off the hook for brutally killing her own children.

Listen:

As seen above, Dargie strongly suggested that the lone holdout had chosen not to let Clancy off the hook out of ignorance or stubbornness.

“There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn’t,” Dargie alleged.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was, which is why we ultimately sent in that note,” he added.

After days of deliberating, the jury foreperson, a leftist pro-Clancy woman, submitted a note to the judge complaining that the lone holdout was refusing to play ball and let Clancy off the hook for killing her children.

In his remarks to ABC News, Dargie also predicted that he and the other pro-Clancy jurors will remain friends now that the trial has concluded.

As previously reported, despite it being an acknowledged fact that Clancy killed her three children, millions of women and some soy boy “beta cucks” have glommed on to her as some hero on account of her claim that the killings were a result of her alleged postpartum psychosis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking with Boston station WBTS earlier in the week, three other jurors — all of them women — also expressed anger toward the lone male holdout who’d refused to vote to make Clancy not criminally liable for her children’s murders.

“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.’”

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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Actually, much of the evidence proved that the killing of Clancy’s children had been a premeditated act:

Dargie joining the chorus of angry, menopausal women defending Clancy hasn’t helped his reputation.

“Nick Dargie is a cuck beta male!” one critic wrote on X.

“The physiognomy of Gen Z pocket mutant Nick Dargie speaks for him,” another critic added.

ADVERTISEMENT

See more backlash below:

Vivek Saxena
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

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.

Latest Articles