Female juror says she thought Lindsay Clancy was guilty but switched to not guilty so she ‘would get the help she needs’

The juror, who spoke anonymously to WBZ-TV reporter Kristina Rex following the trial, described herself as one of the younger members of the jury and said she had not closely followed the high-profile case before being selected.

Clancy was accused of killing her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan, at the family's Duxbury home in January 2023 before attempting suicide. Her defense argued that severe mental illness left her not criminally responsible for the killings.

Asked by Rex where she stood when deliberations began, the juror said she initially sided with the prosecution. "So, originally I felt as though she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it," the juror said. "And maybe I still believe that in a certain way."

She added that she believed Clancy was suffering from a severe mental health crisis at the time. "I think that this was a woman who, you know, she was not mentally healthy," she said. "She was someone that was in the throes of a significant mental health crisis."

The juror said her position evolved during deliberations because she believed the prosecution had left too much uncertainty in its case. "Because at the end of the day, there was so much doubt," she said. "You know, the prosecution didn't have a figurative, you know, smoking gun."

But she then offered another explanation for why she ultimately favored finding Clancy not guilty: getting Clancy treatment. "Eventually I just felt like the only way to get justice work for Cora, Dawson, and Callen, and Patrick, and her parents, and everyone else that was closest was to get her the help that she desperately needed," the juror said. "And there's no way she's getting that help 100%."

The comments drew criticism from conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who argued that the juror had improperly considered what would happen to Clancy after the verdict rather than limiting her decision to the legal questions before the jury.

"The juror here says she went into deliberations thinking Clancy was guilty but switched to not guilty because it was 'the only way Lindsay would get the help she needs,'" Walsh wrote on X. "She's openly admitting she disregarded the law."

"Jurors are not supposed to be making decisions based on those kinds of calculations," he continued. "They were there to judge whether Clancy was guilty or not. Period. Their job was not the ensure the Clancy 'gets the help she needs.' What a farce."

The juror, however, also insisted that reasonable doubt played a decisive role in her conclusion and said she believed convicting Clancy despite that doubt would have violated her constitutional rights. "Because at the end of the day, to not follow that reasonable doubt and to acknowledge that it's there, you morally and legally cannot convict somebody for that," she told Rex.

The juror said most members entered deliberations with strongly held positions and defended a holdout juror against the suggestion that only one person had been unwilling to consider opposing arguments. "There were some big personalities in that room," she said.

The trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 11-1, with one male juror refusing to join the other 11 in finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Three female jurors subsequently criticized the holdout, describing him as "very arrogant" and saying he "completely disregarded" information raised during deliberations. The foreperson said she became "so excited" and began filling out verdict forms after the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt, only for him to maintain that he would not find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Jurors described contentious deliberations that became loud enough for alternate jurors to hear, while also saying the group shared "hugs," "laughter," and "a lot of self-care and group care."

She nevertheless agreed with a note sent to the judge alleging that the holdout juror was failing to properly apply the reasonable-doubt standard. According to the juror, the individual acknowledged areas of reasonable doubt but continued to favor conviction and struggled to explain the reasoning behind that position.

The juror also described the emotional toll of hearing the 911 call involving Clancy's husband, Patrick, who discovered the children. "I will never be the same after the 911 call," she said. She said hearing Patrick's reaction also convinced her that conspiracy theories suggesting he was responsible for the children's deaths were implausible.

"All I could think was that if these people could have heard of that, like, visceral, like, hurling scream, I don't think I could name a single actor or actress that could have performed that, the way he did," she said. "It was horrifying," she added. "You know, just to imagine living through that and being the person to find their children in that scenario, like, it shakes you."