Three Clancy jurors speak out: Holdout admitted ‘reasonable doubt’ — then still refused to acquit

BS BULLETIN:

Three jurors in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial are speaking publicly about the explosive 11-1 deadlock that ended in a mistrial.
Foreperson Roni Carlson says the lone holdout actually acknowledged having reasonable doubt — prompting her to begin filling out acquittal forms — before refusing to vote not guilty by reason of insanity.
The holdout juror has not publicly responded, meaning we’re hearing one side of what became an extraordinary battle inside the jury room.

We finally have a window into what happened behind closed doors during the Lindsay Clancy jury’s marathon deliberations.

And somehow, the story has gotten even stranger.

Three jurors, including foreperson Roni Carlson, sat down with NBC10 Boston following last week’s mistrial and described an increasingly bitter 11-1 standoff with the lone male holdout.

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

Carlson said the jury wasn’t debating whether Clancy killed her three children. Clancy acknowledged doing that.

The question was whether she was legally criminally responsible when she strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan in January 2023.

Her defense argued that severe mental illness and postpartum psychosis left her unable to distinguish right from wrong. Prosecutors argued that her actions — including sending husband Patrick Clancy out to pick up medicine and food — demonstrated planning and awareness.

After seven days and roughly 40 hours of deliberations, the jury couldn’t agree. But Carlson now says there was a moment when she thought they finally had.

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt,” Carlson told NBC10 Boston.

She was so convinced a unanimous verdict had arrived that she began filling out and signing the verdict forms.

Then, according to Carlson, the juror told the group he still would not vote to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.

Juror Kellie Farina said the holdout couldn’t move beyond the horror of what Clancy had done, while Paula Devlin described him as “arrogant” and unwilling to consider what other jurors were telling him.

The disagreement became serious enough that Carlson sent Judge William Sullivan a note saying one juror had expressed reasonable doubt but still would not agree to an acquittal.

Sullivan questioned the panel, reread his instructions on reasonable doubt and sent them back to deliberate.

They remained deadlocked. After three notes saying they couldn’t reach unanimity, Sullivan finally declared a mistrial.

There is an important caveat.

The holdout hasn’t publicly told his side of the story. NBC10 Boston attempted to contact him but had not received a response.

We’ve been following those passions closely at The Daily BS.

In my Rush Hour piece after the mistrial, I wrote about the online explosion after it emerged that the lone holdout was a man — and the women who had somehow predicted it before anyone officially knew.

Then came another twist Tuesday, when Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington actually appealed to President Trump for a pardon — despite presidential pardon power not extending to Massachusetts state crimes.

Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will retry Clancy.

MY QUICK TAKE

Well, ladies. You told me it was a man.

I listened politely. I counseled restraint. I even tried to serve as a bridge between the sexes.

Now three women from the actual jury have emerged to say: Oh, Bo. You had no idea. But here’s where I’m getting off the train. The holdout hasn’t spoken.

Eleven people can be furious with one person and the one person can still believe he’s right. That’s rather the point of requiring a unanimous jury.

If he really said, “I have reasonable doubt, but I’m voting guilty anyway,” however, somebody needs to explain what he thought the words reasonable doubt meant.

Preferably before the retrial.