After the Lindsay Clancy Verdict, Jurors Are Speaking Out — and Making Things Worse

Back when word first got out that a single juror, a man, was standing alone against a not-guilty verdict in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, many on the right (not the left for sure) called him a hero.

That’s the understatement of the year.

Three of the women who sat on that jury, including the foreperson, have now gone public about what happened behind closed doors. Their account of the deliberations that ended in an 11-1 deadlock, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial, paints a portrait of an activist jury that wanted to let a mother who admitted to killing her own children be declared not criminally responsible for her actions, and one man would not let them.

According to the Boston reporter who interviewed the three women, the 11 jurors who favored acquittal were frustrated that the holdout "had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."

Juror number two described the holdout's behavior during deliberations. "He, I think, got up to the cart [with the exhibits] once and then went back to his seat," she said. "He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him the definition of reasonable doubt."

She also recalled him asking for the instructions to be read again. "He said one day, 'Why don't we have the judge read it again?' and we were like, 'No, we have it in front of us,'" she said.

This was not a man who caved to a room full of frustrated colleagues. He held out because the facts, and his own conscience, would not let him sign his name to an acquittal.

The foreperson said she became hopeful when the holdout voiced "reasonable doubt" about the case. She believed that the panel was finally close to a unanimous vote to acquit, and she had already begun filling out the paperwork.

"He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt," she said. "I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say she's not guilty.'"

She had reportedly signed all three verdict forms before he told the group he would not agree to a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Female jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial rip the lone male holdout juror who refused to side with them.

"He would not interact with us... He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."

Patriot. pic.twitter.com/tmNV7CUIDP
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 8, 2026

The holdout juror has not spoken publicly, and that is probably wise. As my PJ Media colleague Catherine Salgado previously reported, pro-Lindsay fanatics have already attacked her ex-husband, Patrick, and made death threats against him. A man who single-handedly kept a child killer from being held criminally responsible would probably be an even bigger target.

Even Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, was not shy about his contempt for the holdout. He said his client had been "robbed" of a favorable outcome and added, "I hope that guy can sleep well at night."

I bet he does, actually.

I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that one of the female jurors openly complained that the holdout "had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children," as if that fact were beside the point. Liberal women on that panel let their sympathy for a killer matter more than justice for three dead children.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.