Lindsay Clancy juror claims lone holdout fixated on specific detail inside home where three children were killed
A juror on the Lindsay Clancy trial has claimed the holdout juror was focused on one specific detail of the case - the amount of blood found in the family's home.
Last week, Judge William Sullivan declared the Clancy trial a mistrial, after the jury could not come to a unanimous decision on whether the mother of three was criminally responsible when she killed five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan.
It was later reported that one holdout juror would not agree that Clancy was not guilty by way of insanity.
In the last week, a number of jurors have spoken out, with foreperson Roni Carlson telling NBC10 Boston that she 'got ready to fill out the three verdict forms'.
Advert
"I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say she's not guilty by reason of insanity,'" she said.
Now, Paula Devlin, who was also on the 12 person jury, has shared more insight on the lone juror.
She told the Daily Mail that the juror, who has not been identified, was 'quiet' for most of the deliberations, and claimed he preferred to 'watch videos on his phone' or 'speak with his wife'.
Devlin also alleged that he was more focused on 'policing the tenor of the group's discussions,' such as if they were all talking at once, rather than revealing his reasons for believing the mother of three was guilty.
She then revealed that one of the juror's main concerns was 'centered on the amount of blood found in the bedroom of the Clancys' home', which was located in Duxbury, Massachusetts.
After strangling her children, Clancy attempted to take her own life, prosecutors said.
It's claimed 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," Devlin added.
The remaining 11 jurors were said to be questioning what he meant.
Devlin revealed that the jury heard experts speak about the blood splatter' and explain to them how it all was what it was supposed to be'.
However, when he was questioned by the jurors, Devlin claims that he 'refused to elaborate or reveal how it linked to why he wouldn't acquit Clancy'.
She then explained that if he did 'back up what he was thinking', or even explain 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 said.
However, one anonymous juror, juror number 5, defended the lone juror in an interview with WBZ-TV, stating: "He was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side."
Speaking on why they changed their mind, the anonymous juror said: "Eventually I just felt like the only way to get justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan, and Patrick [Clancy] and her parents and anyone else that was close to this was to get her the help that she desperately needed - and there’s no way she’s getting that help in prison."
Topics: Lindsay Clancy, Crime, US News
Kiesha Dosanjh