Lindsay Clancy juror shares the evidence that meant the holdout wouldn't agree to not guilty verdict
A juror in the Lindsay Clancy case has opened up about what the single holdout juror allegedly said during deliberations, including what led to his refusal to acquit.
Clancy has been charged with murder in relation to the deaths of her three children at their family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, with defence attorneys arguing that she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis, meaning that she should not be held criminally liable.
The initial case came to a close after jurors spent seven days deliberating, before being unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
The majority of the jurors are said to have been of the opinion that the 36-year-old was not guilty by reason of insanity. However, one male juror, who has not been publicly identified, reportedly refused to agree with the verdict.
Advert
In the end, a mistrial was declared, with jurors who had favoured acquitting Clancy speaking of feeling 'anger' and 'defeat' over the outcome in a case that has drawn huge public attention, including conspiracy theories.
Speaking to the Daily Mail, Paula Devlin opened up about the one juror who refused to acquit Clancy.
"He [the holdout juror] thought there was too much blood in the bedroom," Devlin claimed.
Clancy's husband at the time Patrick, from whom she has since separated, had returned to their home on 24 January 2023 after picking up medicine for one of their children and takeout food for dinner.
When he went upstairs he found the bedroom door locked, and after breaking through the door, he saw there was blood on the floor and a knife on the nightstand, also bloodied, as well as the window being open.
Patrick had found Clancy outside, where she told him she had tried to commit suicide.
"We had lots of testimony around the blood. We had a blood expert that was very compelling and she was really good at how she described it to us," Devlin continued.
"He said that he thought there was too much blood for the wounds that she had.
"We all asked him what he meant by that, because we heard experts talk about the blood spatter and explain to us how it all was what it was supposed to be."
However, Devlin claimed that he had refused to elaborate on why this had led him to decide not to acquit Clancy. She's not the only juror to raise concern about the holdout.
"I feel that he didn't make any sense," she added. "I feel like if he could have pointed to one specific thing to show us, to back up what he was thinking or why he was thinking it, then all of us would have a different feeling.
"We never would have sent the information to the judge that we did, because that's part of the process. It's okay to disagree."
Devlin also alleged that the holdout had rarely spoken during the trial, and during deliberations had apparently spent more time on criticising the tone of the discussions.
"The main thing he focused on is sometimes we would all want to talk at once, and that was very upsetting to him," she claimed.
"He would get upset and say, 'Listen to what she's saying, listen to what he's saying, be respectful'."
Devlin added: "We were trying to say to him, that sometimes somebody says something and they get lost in their thought or they can't find the right word, and somebody else puts that word in there for them or finishes their thought, that's how normal conversation works.
"But when that would happen, he would get upset and just take all this time lecturing us about not being respectful."
She went on to claim that when asked to explain his reasoning behind refusing to acquit Clancy, at first he 'didn't say a word'.
"We asked the lone juror, what are the things that are making you think that she's guilty, and we asked him, and he didn't want to write on the board," Devlin alleged.
"He didn't say a word, and so one of the jurors jumped up and said, 'I'll write for you,' and then he said the things that he said, and then we talked about each one of those things."
Topics: US News, Crime, Lindsay Clancy
Kit Roberts