Lindsay Clancy juror was fan of accused cop-killer Karen Read who celebrated her acquittal after mistrial

Four women who were on the Lindsay Clancy jury spoke out in two different interviews yesterday about the lone holdout juror who refused to agree with the group that Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. The picture their interviews paint of the jury room is that at the start of the deliberations, four jurors wanted to convict, three were convinced not to, and one would not budge on his determination that Clancy was criminally guilty of murdering her three children ages 5, 3, and just 18 months in January 2023.

One of the jurors who spoke to local news, Kellie Farina, is part of a Facebook group called Free Karen Read and posted in favor of the woman charged with killing her police officer boyfriend in January 2022. Read had been dating John O'Keefe, a Boston police officer, when the two went out for drinks in Canton, near the Massachusetts capital. Read dropped him off at a party after midnight for another BPD officer, Brian Albert. O'Keefe never made it home and he was found lying in the snow outside Albert's house.

Read was accused of hitting him with her car when leaving the drop-off and leaving him there to die. Parts of her headlight were found at the scene. Her defense argued that O'Keefe's cop buddies beat him up and dragged him outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial. She was tried again and was acquitted. The state's star witness, lead prosecutor Michael Proctor, did not testify at the second trial after he was found to have said mean things about Read.

Farina backed Read. She criticized prosecutors for bringing up Proctor in closing arguments, saying, "The only mention of that POS Michael Proctor by Hank Brennan is he referred to him as bogeyman Proctor during his closing arguments. What a freaking joke!" When Read was acquitted after her second trial in June 2025, Farina wrote "Over and Out Page. Massachusetts Jury did their rightful duty today. Karen's FREE," with a heart emoji.

In her interview with NBC 10 Boston, she said she appreciated how Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington was "compassionate," when a fellow juror said he had been "arrogant." She said he was "compassionate, with that arrogance." Farina works as a chef at a senior living facility. 

When asked by NBC about the holdout, or "rogue" juror, Farina said "I'm not sure if 'rogue' is the right word, Sue, but everyone of us in the hours of frustration would get up and walk the room. 'Cause you just couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go over to the cart with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the cart once, very briefly, and went back to his seat. He would not, he would not interact with us— and try to understand, we read to him on numerous occasions the definition of 'reasonable doubt' from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day, in the end, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again. And we were like 'no, we have it in front of us,'" she emphasized.

"We don't need that. And we would highlight, and y'know, so-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable doubt. But he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay Clancy killed her children."

The three women interviewed by NBC 10 Boston, including the forewoman of the jury, complained that while three jurors had been swayed to come over to their side, there was one man who would not capitulate to a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. 

This was corroborated by an interview given to CBS WBZ News Boston, where a juror speaking anonymously said she changed her verdict after coming to believe that finding Clancy not guilty would be the only way for her to get the help she needed. She also said that "big personalities" in the room tried to sway their peers.

"I will say," she said, "a majority of the people on, it doesn't matter what side it was on, was very firm in their, like, stance and their beliefs kind of from the beginning. You know, this standalone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side. So I'm gonna kind of defend that individual in a sense. 

"There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day I feel like it just came down to an inability to kind of move past your convictions and, you know, even after that dynamite charge, to be unable to, you know, self-analyze yourself and be like 'Okay, am I missing something? Am I failing to acknowledge or give this the weight, at some point, like this doubt, that it needs?' That person, that the majority of the room was kind of trying to sway that person from the very beginning."