Jurors from Lindsay Clancy trial speak publicly, telling Boston reporter they believe Lindsay was a good mother
Published at | Updated at
Trey Baylor, Courtroom Insider
BOSTON — Three jurors from the Lindsay Clancy trial are sharing their thoughts publicly in an interview with Boston’s NBC10.
On Friday, a judge declared a mistrial in Clancy’s case after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. They say one juror, in particular, held out on declaring Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, resulting in an 11-1 vote.
READY | Mistrial is declared in Lindsay Clancy child killings case after jury deadlocks
Clancy is accused of murdering her three children while suffering from severe postpartum symptoms. Her defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has argued in court that Clancy was suffering from psychosis linked to her postpartum depression at the time of the alleged murders.
All three jurors — including the foreperson — who agreed to speak with NBC10 found the prosecution’s case lacking, with one juror saying she believed the prosecution should have been more compassionate, considering the contents of the case.
“I just found it to be harsh, very, very harsh,” juror Kellie Farina said. “I found it to be biased, right out of the gate. I found them also to be kind of unprofessional and just without a heart.”
Farina also noted the prosecution’s lack of character witnesses to show Clancy was a bad mother. She said it was testimony from Patrick Clancy that convinced her that Lindsay had been a good mother who loved their children.
Farina said she felt that Lindsay Clancy had to have been suffering from a severe mental crisis in order to take the actions she took.
In court, Patrick Clancy’s testimony spanned two days. He spent extensive time talking about home life in the Clancy household and Lindsay’s struggles with her mental health.
“From statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom,” Farina said in the interview with NBC10, referencing the prosecution’s case against Clancy. “I thought it was very cold.”
In contrast, the juror said she appreciated Reddington’s efforts to describe what Clancy was going through, mentally.
“Kevin really shot from the heart,” Farina said. “We were appreciative that Kevin just cut through the bullsh** and just moved it along with so much compassion for her (Clancy). We didn’t find any compassion in the prosecution.”
“We kept having to bring ourselves back to the fact that we weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children,” said Roni Carlson, another juror featured in the interview. “We’re trying to figure out, ‘Did she know right from wrong at that time?’ And with everybody saying, ‘She loved her children so much,’ everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother-in-law. She had to have snapped and not known what she was doing. To me, it was proof that she didn’t know what she was doing.”
“There wasn’t one person on either side (defense or prosecution) that could say anything bad about her (Clancy). Even the prosecution couldn’t point to anything,” said Paula Delvin, the third juror featured in NBC10’s interview.
All three jurors said they felt they were provided with sufficient evidence to prove that Clancy had been a good mother who, without the influence of her mental health issues, would never have harmed her children.
Watch NBC10’s full interview with the jurors in the video player above.