Hidden True Crime - The Holdout Juror SPEAKS — And The Defense’s fight to Stop a Retrial for Lindsay Clancy

Episode Date: September 19, 2026

Lauren Matthias of Hidden True Crime breaks down the stunning aftermath of the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, including what jurors say happened during the contentious 11–1 deliberations, the holdout juror’s newly revealed side of the story, and the disturbing controversy surrounding his identity and background. We examine the conflicting claims about reasonable doubt, the juror questionnaire, and the exercise-band demonstration—plus Lindsay’s renewed motion for a finding of not guilty and attorney Martin Weinberg’s forthcoming double-jeopardy challenge. Could the judge stop Massachusetts from putting Lindsay Clancy on trial again? And as Patrick Clancy prepares to speak publicly with his wife, Dr. Rachel Danis, what happens next in the case that remains far from over? Sponsors: Ethos Life Insurance: Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/HIDDEN. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Jones Road Beauty: Use code HIDDEN at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Gift with your first purchase About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I am so ready for fall because I am ready for clothes that I actually look forward to wearing, again, especially a really soft cashmere sweater. Quince makes elevated everyday essentials using premium materials, and their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $50. They have that soft, luxurious feel without the luxury brand price. and they're timeless enough to wear year after year. I love pieces that make getting dressed simple, but still make me feel put together.

And Quince has become one of those brands I genuinely use and recommend. They offer premium, stretched denim, leather bags and footwear, washable silk, and beautiful 14-carat gold jewelry. Yeah, everything is priced, 50 to 80% less than similar brands, because Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. Find the fall pieces you'll reach foremost at Quince. Download the Quince app or head to quince.com slash hidden chew crime. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

Now available in Canada and UK to thank you Quince. So it's Quince, Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash hidden. true crime. When the Lindsay Clancy trial ended in a mistrial, the story did not end. It's actually when a completely new story emerged. For nearly seven weeks, 12 people had sat through the horrifying circumstances surrounding the deaths of Lindsay Clancy's children. And then they went into the deliberation room, that jury. And eventually, they became deadlocked. 11 jurors reached one conclusion while one juror refused to join them. And that single holdout, juror has become the center of an enormous controversy.

But before people started digging into who that juror was, his background or what they believe they had found about him, several of the other jurors began talking publicly about what happened inside that jury room. And their accounts painted a very specific picture. They described jurors changing their minds. They described arguments, frustration, tears, laughter hugs, and even moments when they had to stop deliberating because everyone was too emotionally overwhelmed to continue. And they described one juror who, according to them, repeatedly acknowledged that he had doubts about the prosecution's case

while still refusing to reach the verdict that the other jurors believed the evidence required. And that is where all of this gets complicated because there is a big difference between saying that someone disagreed with you and saying that someone refused to follow the law. A jury is allowed to disagree. A juror is allowed to reach a conclusion that everyone else thinks is wrong. That's literally one of the possibilities built into our jury system. But according to several members of this particular jury, what happened here went beyond a disagreement? And that's what we're going to get into. According to juror, Paula Deviling, when those 12 people first entered the deliberation room, the vote did not start off as 11 to 1. The initial split, actually, she said,

said was eight, two, and two. Eight jurors were leaning toward not guilty by reason of insanity. Two jurors had not made up their minds, and two jurors believed Lindsay was guilty. According to Paula, the jury spent a significant amount of time actually working through the evidence. One of the defense witnesses who had a major impact on Paula was Dr. Resnick. She said, Paula said that his testimony about altruistic filicide was particularly important to her because throughout the trial the jury had heard over and over again about Lindsay's relationship with her children. The witnesses who knew her had described Lindsay as a loving mother, her family had described her that way, and the photographs they had seen from inside the Clancy Home painted a

picture of a family surrounded by love. And then Dr. Resnick, on the stand, offered an explanation for something that on its face seemed impossible to understand. How could a mother who loved her children so deeply, suddenly killed them. Paula said that testimony gave her a framework for understanding how something like this could happen. I think Dr. Resnick, his testimony about altruistic philicide was really impactful because all throughout the trial, we had all the witnesses there had been nothing but good said about Lindsay and how amazing of a mother she was and how much she loved her children. We saw that in every picture that was taken of the house on the night that this happened. Everywhere you look, there was just love. There was a big sign that said, it's a wonderful life.

And, you know, there wasn't anything that said she wasn't that. And then to hear somebody talking about a real reason why all of a sudden this could happen, that was really impactful. And then there was Lindsay Clancy's husband Patrick. Patrick had lost all three of his children. He had also lost his wife in the sense that the woman he knew and loved had become the person who admitted to killing their children. And yet, according to Paula, when he testified, the prosecution tried to get him to say something negative about Lindsay, but he would not. And that made an impression on the jurors. Even after everything that had happened, Patrick Clancy could not bring himself to describe Lindsay as a bad person or even a bad mother. For Paula, that said a lot. And according to Paula, it was also something the holdout juror struggled with. She said he could not understand how Lindsay could have killed her children one at a time and then carried out the other steps that followed, including her attempt to take her own life.

And Paula said that to this juror, the sequence of events was difficult to reconcile with the defense's argument that Lindsay was experiencing psychosis. And I think that was one of the things that the whole doubt juror really, that was one of his main points. Was what? He couldn't wrap his head around that? Yeah, that she could do this one at a time and then, you know, do all the steps that she did to go commit suicide. And what did you all do to try to convince him? Because clearly, it was 8-2-2. So not, in the beginning, there were people, who felt the same way that he did, was there, did you all work together as a group to try to convince him? And what appeared to be his main resistance? We all work together, and I don't know

if it was to convince him to start with. We all work together to convince ourselves. But the other jurors were looking at the same sequence and asking a different question. Whether Lindsay understood what she was doing and whether she understood that it was wrong. Paula said that the jurors had to repeatedly remind themselves of that, that they knew that Lindsay had killed her children. They knew that. But the issue was her mental state at the time. And that became the central argument inside that jury room. According to Paula, the jury eventually got to a point where the split was actually 10 to 2. But the jurors who were in the minority started feeling like they were being attacked because everyone else was asking them to explain their positions, which Paula acknowledged would absolutely be hard on anyone.

But they continued. They questioned one another. They went back through the evidence and they challenged their own assumptions. And according to Paula, three jurors who had initially been against Lindsay eventually changed their positions. Paula said that after those jurors were given time to look at the evidence, they eventually came to the conclusion that there was indeed reasonable doubt. Paula remembered one juror saying something along the lines of, I really believe in my gut that she wasn't in psychosis and she was guilty. But then that juror realized that the evidence wasn't proving what his gut was telling him. Paula described going home every night, believing they would have to tell the judge the next day that they were deadlocked.

But then they'd come back the next morning and someone would have another idea. Someone would bring up another piece of evidence. someone would suggest going through something again. And they'd start talking. Hours would pass. And suddenly, it would be late afternoon. And they were right back where they started thinking they weren't going to get anywhere. There was one particular day when things became so heated that everyone was pushing Paula to declare that they were deadlocked.

They had a bell they could ring for the court officer and the other jurors were telling her, telling Paula, to write a note. they were ready to end it. But Paula looked at the clock. It was around a quarter to four and she basically said no, they needed a break and they could come back tomorrow. Because according to Paula, that decision was another example of how much effort the jurors were actually putting into trying to reach a unanimous verdict.

At different points, they also received instructions from the judge that they had to interpret. Paula described the jury going through the legal language together, including the definition of reasonable doubt. They were trying hard to understand exactly what they were being asked to do. And eventually, according to several other jurors, the focus became increasingly centered on the holdout juror. Nick Dargey, juror number 10, also came forward publicly to describe what happened.

Nick was 25 years old and had been serving overseas in the military when he was selected for the jury. He said that he knew essentially nothing about the last. Lindsay Clancy case before being selected. But after sitting through nearly seven weeks of testimony, he said the cases stayed with him. He said he couldn't close his eyes without imagining those three children. And one of the most disturbing pieces of evidence for Nick was the 911 call that Patrick made. Nick said that he would never forget it. He described hearing a scream unlike anything he had ever heard before. And when conspiracy theories began circulating online suggesting that Patrick

might have been responsible for his own children's deaths, Nick rejected that idea. He said he didn't believe Patrick had anything to do with it and that hearing the 911 call changed the way people viewed the situation. And the jurors who spoke publicly, they were all adamant about something else too. That Patrick Clancy was not the person they were judging. They did not believe that it was their job to determine whether Patrick had done anything wrong. Paula echoed what Nick said that Patrick's reaction was gut wretchy. She said that the jury purposefully kept Patrick out of their deliberations and they didn't allow speculation about him to become part of their discussions. This case was about Lindsay. So Paula, it's safe to say that none of you think that Patrick Clancy had

anything to do with this? We didn't know anything about Patrick before this, except for what he said on the stand. And, you know, I can only speak for myself. I've seen a few things come up. I've looked at other things. Nobody but us were in that room looking at that evidence the way that we did. And his reaction was so gut-wrenching. And it never got any easier.

We never allowed Patrick to be part of our deliberations or any of our, any of this experience. We just said, this is not about Patrick. John and I have had to have those very adult conversations that nobody particularly enjoys having, which is if something happens to one of us, is everything actually in order? Would the other person know what to do? They're not fun conversations to have, but having a family. makes you realize that planning for things you hope never happen is part of taking care of the people you love. And that is why I appreciate how straightforward ethos makes looking into life insurance.

The process is 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes, and potentially get same-day coverage. There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health questions online. And you can get up to $3 million in coverage with some policies as low as $30 a month. Take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash hidden. That is eth-h-os.com slash hidden. Application times may vary, rates may vary. Another thing that several jurors discussed during their public interviews was the difficult

evidence they had to view, including the autopsy photographs of the children. Several of them felt the prosecution spent too much time showing them. Paula specifically said that she felt the prosecution continued to emphasize the most graphic aspects of the case, even though those images did not answer the question the jury actually had to resolve. Nick Dargey described another incident that became one of the most controversial details to emerge from the jurors interviews. And according to Nick, the holdout juror took an exercise band that had been used. in the killings, the actual exercise band, the murder weapon. He took it out of the evidence back. He then grabbed an empty water bottle and tied the band around the bottle to pull it. Nick believed that this juror was attempting to recreate how Lindsay used the bands.

He said he was shocked and asked the juror why he was doing it. His reaction was essentially that this wasn't a game. They weren't playing detective or a game of clue. and according to Nick, the juror's behavior had deeply disturbed him. Darjeet told us one time he confronted the holdout after the man picked up what Clancy used to strangle her kids. He took the exercise band out of the bag, grabbed an empty water bottle, and tied the band around the water bottle and pulled it. Did he explain why he did that? No. He might have. I'm not entirely.

I think I was just shied. so shocked that he did that. Is that a mimic of how she killed the children? Yeah, I assume so, yeah. What'd you think when he did that? I was shocked. It didn't make any sense to me. We're not in here to play detective

or it's not a game of clue. Like, this is serious. I asked him, why, why are you doing that? That's a band that was used to strangle a child. It's disgusting. But that wasn't the only complaint Nick had. He said there were times when the holdout juror would not engage with the rest of the jury. He described the man scrolling on his phone while other jurors were talking to him.

He said that on multiple occasions jurors asked the holdout to identify specific evidence or testimony that supported his position. And according to Nick, there were times when he could not provide it. Take me inside the deliberation room. There was times where, you know, our vote was different than the last day. But I think ultimately once we laid out all of the evidence and how we saw it, that really brought everyone kind of on the same page except for this one juror. There was several times I would ask him to show us, like,

evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and he couldn't, which is why we ultimately sent in that note. Otherwise, like, there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion. Like, that's, you know, that would be a hung jury. That, like, that is our justice system. But he wouldn't engage or couldn't find something to support his view? There was times he wouldn't engage. Like, he'd be scrolling on his phone while people are talking to him. Things like that.

This became one of the central complaints from the other jurors. They said that they didn't have a problem with him disagreeing, but they didn't. they did have a problem with what they described as an unwillingness to engage with the evidence. Because again, one person can have reasonable doubt. One person can believe the prosecution hasn't met its burden. And if that person genuinely believes that, the jury can become hung. Nick himself acknowledged that. He said there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion.

That's the justice system. The problem was that this juror wasn't able or willing to point to evidence supporting the position he was taking. And that was something the other jurors increasingly struggled with. Another juror, Ronnie, described the same issue. According to Ronnie, the holdout juror eventually acknowledged that he had reasonable doubt. This apparently happened after the jury watched one of Lindsay's interviews. Ronnie said they actually started filling out the verdict forms because they thought that they had finally. finally reached a conclusion. But then the holdout reportedly said that even though he had reasonable doubt, he still wasn't going to find Lindsay not guilty by reason of insanity.

So, Ronnie, you would, you would say the holdout was a rogue juror? Yeah, I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview. I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. And I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. I actually, 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 that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. Or he would just deny, like we tried all different ways, right? And we had one of the jurors in a very calm way, asked him some questions, and he said, I this and this didn't show it and this didn't show it you know that he had doubt and he said it out loud and they said to him that's doubt oh no I didn't say that and he clearly did so many

times for me I'm not sure if rogue is the right word sue but every one of us in the hours of a frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn't sit anymore and would all go 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. And that left the other jurors confused because in their minds, reasonable doubt was the entire point, right? They tried explaining it to him, they read the definition from the judge's instructions. They went through it again and again. But according to Ronnie, the juror continued to insist that he had doubts while also refusing to reach the verdict the other jurors believed those doubts required. At one point, according to

Paula, the holdout himself suggested that the judge come into the jury room and read the definition of reasonable doubt again. But the jurors already had the instructions in front of them. So they went through them together. And according to their account, this became increasingly frustrating because the holdout position seemed to them internally inconsistent. He could acknowledge doubt, but he wouldn't acknowledge that his doubt had a legal consequence. And that's ultimately what led the jury to send the judge a note. They identified the juror by number and explained their concern. And eventually, Judge Sullivan brought the jurors in individually and asked whether they understood the concept of reasonable doubt. And according to Ronnie, every juror said yes, including the holdout.

But then when they returned, Ronnie said she asked everyone to raise their hands if they had answered yes. The holdout raised his hand too. And Ronnie's reaction was essentially, how does this make sense? if you understand reasonable doubt, how can you also say that you have reasonable doubt but refuse to apply it? That's when many of the jurors reached the point where they believed there was no changing his mind. They began referring to him as a rogue juror. Kelly, another juror who spoke publicly described something similar. She said that while the rest of the jurors were getting up, walking around the room and going over to the evidence cart, the holdout rarely did. According to Kelly, he got up once briefly and then returned to his seat.

She said he did not interact with them in the way the others did. They repeatedly read the reasonable doubt instruction to him and tried getting him to consider different evidence. But according to Kelly, he remained focused on one thing that Lindsay had viciously killed her children. The fact was impossible for him to get past, essentially making it so he could not consider her mental state. We read him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day in the end, well, 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.

We don't need that. And we would highlight it and so-and-so, this is the definition of reason of doubt. he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children. So I in the end felt that he just was failed and, you know, just refused to be open-minded. And that led the other jurors to believe that he was losing sight of the actual legal question at hand. Did Lindsay know right from wrong when she killed her children? In the majority's view, the evidence created reasonable doubt about that. I used to think that looking really put together meant spending more time on my makeup.

Hello, early 2000s. But now I'm realizing it's almost the opposite. The products I love most are the ones that let me do less. And that's exactly what happened with Jones Road Miracle Bomb. I can put it on with my fingers, add some color and glow, and it enhances my skin without covering it up, especially on a busy morning. I love being able to look. polished without turning, getting ready into a whole other production. And now they've added their

new minimalist defining mascara, which is very much my kind of mascara. It gives your lashes natural looking length, fullness and definition with a flexible silicone silicone wand that separates the lashes for that soft feathery look without clumping, without smudging or flaking. Modern day makeup that's clean. It's strategic and it's multifunctional for effortless routines. For a limited time, listeners are getting a free full-size mascara on their first purchase when they use code hidden at checkout. Just head to jones roadbeautcom and use code hidden at checkout. And after you purchase, they will ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that our show sent you. Toward the end, the jurors who spoke out described being emotionally drained. They sent another note

and identified the holdout juror and were telling the judge that he had acknowledged having reasonable doubt but was not acknowledging it in his verdict. They waited for a response. And then they were called back into the courtroom. They were expecting a mistrial. Some had their heads down. Some were crying. Everyone was exhausted. And then unexpectedly, Redington, Kevin Reddington, Lindsay's attorney, stood up and said he wanted to stay and wanted to take the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court. The jurors didn't understand what was happening, but they were sent back into the deliberation room, the jury room, and then they waited and waited. Some jurors had reached a point where they were saying that they weren't going to come back if the trial continued into another day. They had tried everything.

They talked calmly. they got angry, they cried, they pleaded with the holdout to be open-minded. They told him to put himself in their position. They asked him to stop focusing on the fact that Lindsay had killed the children and instead focused on the legal question that had. The juror said they still believe in the American jury system that even though the experience was an incredibly difficult one for them, the system itself was important. Some did, though, however, have one major criticism of Massachusetts system.

and want to see a majority rule system rather than requiring a unanimous verdict. That was something the juror said they discussed repeatedly. Their argument was that 11 people had reached the same conclusion while one juror prevented the case from reaching a verdict. But again, there is a bigger issue underneath that. The fact that 11 people agree doesn't automatically mean the 12th person is wrong. And the jurors themselves understood that. They weren't arguing, again, that disagreement shouldn't be allowed.

but in their opinion, this was not a disagreement. They believed that the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt, but still refused to apply it. And after the jurors started talking, people became increasingly interested in that one single person, that one juror, and people started looking. They started trying to figure out who this juror was outside of that courtroom. And that's where this story takes another very different turn. Because we are going to get into what people found when they started digging into the identity and background of the holdout juror. And why those discoveries have become such a huge part of the controversy surrounding the mistrial. So now, let's talk about the person at the center of all of this, the holdout juror, the one juror who did not agree.

At first, the public didn't know who that juror was. and there was a reason for that. The jurors' identities had been protected, and they should be protected. But after the mistrial, the information surrounding this one juror started coming out piece by piece with each juror interview, and then people started connecting those pieces.

And eventually, the holdout juror was identified. And once that happened, people started digging into his personal history. They found court records, allegations involving domestic violence, a restraining order in an eviction case and family members who were willing to talk, but before we go any further, I want to make something really clear. Having a messy personal history automatically mean that someone is incapable of serving on a jury. Being accused of something doesn't automatically mean that you did it and being arrested

doesn't automatically mean you're guilty. A dismissed charge is not a conviction and having a restraining order issued against you doesn't always mean that every allegation contained in that order was proven true. But once someone's identity is exposed online, all of those things can very quickly get mashed together into one narrative. But first, let's talk about how this person was identified. The first major piece seems to have come from NBC10 Boston. Their investigators reported on the holdout juror's background without initially naming him. They reported on court records involving him, including a 2021 criminal case involving allegations of domestic violence.

They also reported on a restraining order involving a teenage family member and a pending eviction case. The reporting included enough information from different documents that people online were able to start connecting those dots. And then one particular YouTuber later published the juror's name and photograph. Other people then repeated the information. And once a name and photograph are circulating online, it's not very difficult for people to find additional information, like addresses, family members, social media accounts, relatives, property records. That's essentially how this became a full-blown doxing situation of a juror.

The juror had never publicly identified himself or gone on TV or said, hey, I'm the holdout. He had not volunteered his name to the public. Other jurors had chosen to speak publicly about their own experiences, which they are allowed to do. But this particular juror did not make that choice. And the consequences did not stop with just him and the doxing of his identity. His family has been pulled into all of this too. His brother told the New York Post that the family had been overwhelmed by people contacting them. And perhaps most importantly, he said the family didn't even know

that this man, their family member, have been serving on the Lindsay Clancy jury. He apparently hadn't even told them, so his family didn't know they were about to become part of this huge controversy either. Judge Sullivan had already impounded the juror's names for 14 days, but he's now ordered for them to remain sealed indefinitely,

citing what the court described as a real and present risk to their safety. That came after the online release of personal information and reports of threats and other concerning behavior surrounding the jurors. And honestly, the cat is kind of out of the bag already. But there is a legitimate public question here. If the holdout juror did something wrong during jury selection or deliberations, people are allowed to ask questions about it, right? But at what point does public interest in a juror become harassment? If a juror intentionally lied on the questionnaire, on the juror questionnaire, that's a legitimate issue to investigate, just like if he knowingly disregarded the judge's instructions, but that does not mean people

are entitled to show up at the person's house or that their family members should be targeted. And it doesn't mean every personal detail about someone's life suddenly becomes fair game. At least it shouldn't. It shouldn't. But let's talk about what has actually been reported. In September of 2021, the man who has been identified online as the whole, holdout juror was arrested after an incident involving his then-wife. According to the police report obtained by NBC10 Boston, the man's 13-year-old nephew called 911, and that nephew alleges that his uncle grabbed his wife by the throat, threw her into a dresser, and then battered her over their crying infant, an argument over their crying infant.

The report also says the juror's mother was present and repeatedly screamed, Your evil, as police arrested him. Those are allegations contained in a police report, and eventually those criminal charges were dismissed. The man's former wife later told NBC10 that she did not want to testify because she was concerned about losing custody of her daughter. Later on, that same teenage nephew would eventually become involved in another legal proceeding involving the juror. According to court documents in 2025, the nephew obtained a restraining order against his uncle.

The teenage alleges that the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The affidavit said the juror told him, you ruined my life after the teenager had called police during the earlier incident. The teenager also alleges that his uncle told him that he had had this coming, that was in quotes, had this coming for a long time. But there's another part of this that immediately caught people's attention. The restraining order was active when the juror was selected for the Lindsay Clancy trial. So according to the reporting, it remained active while he sat through weeks of testimony. And that's when people started asking, how was this not caught during jury selection? And should he have been qualified to even be a juror?

The NBC-10 investigators have exclusively uncovered new details about the one holdout juror from the Lindsay Clancy trial. Documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations. Now, this is a story you'll only see here on NBC10 Boston. Thanks for joining me tonight. I'm Priscilla Casper. Now, we've also discovered an eviction case tied to months of not paying rent. Plus, the investigators found a restraining order against him active while he was on the jury in the Clancy case.

Those details, of course, raised questions about the jury selection process and how he was picked for the high-profile case that ended in a mistrial. Our NBC-10 investigator, Ryan Cath, has been digging into the juror's history all week. Ryan, what did you find out? We've repeatedly tried to contact the juror at the home where his landlord is currently trying to evict him. We're not revealing his identity because he hasn't chosen to speak publicly and because the juror list is currently impounded. But we wanted to share the details we learned that experts say should have raised red flags

about how he filled out his juror questionnaire. Okay, sir, do you have any issue complying with the order that you stay away from and have no contact directly or indirectly with the alleged victim in this case and also that you're not abuse this person? You're listening to audio the NBC 10 investigators obtained from Brockton District Court in September 2021. That's when the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case faced a criminal charge for assaulting his wife. According to this police report, the juror's 13-year-old nephew called 911 after seeing his uncle grab his wife, by the throat and throw her into a dresser. The report says the juror's mom repeatedly screamed your evil as police arrested him. Court records show the couple divorced after the incident,

and the criminal charge was eventually dismissed. The ex-wife told me this week she didn't want to testify in the case because she was worried about losing custody of her daughter. Last year, that same teenage nephew took out this restraining order after he says the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen wrote that his uncle then said, you ruin my life for calling the police and added, you've had this coming your way for a long time. Officer did observe that the nephew had injuries to his left eyes closed for grip. That restraining order was still active when the juror was selected for the Lindsay Clancy trial

and listened to evidence for weeks in the high-profile case. So now I want to go through the Massachusetts juror questionnaire, which helps the court and the parties determine whether someone is suitable. to serve on a particular jury. And the actual questionnaire asks some pretty direct questions. It asks whether the prospective juror or anyone in their household or family has ever been arrested, sued, served with a court order, charged with a crime, been a civil or criminal case, convicted of a crime, been a crime victim seated on a jury or involved in seeking a restraining order, stayaway order, or injunction. If the answer is yes, the person is asked to explain. The questionnaire also asks, quote, is there anything else in your background, experience, employment, training, education, knowledge, or beliefs that might affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

And again, if the answer is yes, they're supposed to explain. Then there's a declaration at the bottom. The jurors certifies that the information provided is true and complete to the best of their knowledge. And the form specifically warns that a willful misrepresentation or a mission of the material fact is a crime. The statute says essentially the same thing. Massachusetts law requires the questionnaire and states that a willful misrepresentation of a material fact can be punished by a fine of up to $2,000. So here's the question everyone should be asking. What did this juror actually put on his questionnaire?

Because we don't have the answer to that. He could very well have disclosed his arrest, the restraining order, and everything else. And if he did disclose all of that, everything, then this becomes a very different conversation. Maybe the lawyers and the judge knew and they considered that information during the jury selection. Maybe the attorneys decided they could still accept him. Massachusetts Superior Court rules specifically allow attorneys to ask reasonable follow-up questions about jurors' responses and ring questionnaires during voir dire. So if the information was disclosed and the lawyers had the opportunity to ask about it, then the question becomes, why did they decide to keep him? That's a completely different issue than a juror secretly lying.

But if he didn't disclose information that the questionnaire required him to disclose, then that's definitely much more serious. There's another part of his background that received a lot of attention to, his housing situation. NBC10 reported that his landlord had been trying to evict him over unpaid rent. According to housing court records, he had not paid rent since March. The landlord eventually obtained a judgment of more than $12,000 in unpaid rent and was moving forward with the eviction. Now, obviously, that isn't necessarily a crime, being behind, rent doesn't make someone dishonest or incapable of serving on a jury. But it became part of the story because people were already looking into everything they could find about this man.

And once the search started, every piece of information became another part of the online narrative. Well, NBC10 was also able to get in contact with members of the jurors family. Family members have said that they have been estranged from him after the jury. the incident involving his nephew, and one family member described him in extremely negative terms. She said that she believed that he never should have served on such an important jury. And then there's another piece of this that has become a huge topic of discussion, the juror's religion. His brother told the New York Post that the family is devoutly Haitian Catholic. But the brother specifically pushed back on the idea that the juror's Catholic faith was

responsible for his verdict. He said, I don't think religion had anything to do with it. According to his brother, his sibling looked at the evidence and made his decision based on what he believed the evidence showed. And this is important because the jurors themselves had already publicly discussed the prosecution bringing up Catholic doctrine during the trial, right? The prosecution referenced the Catholic teaching that murder is a mortal sin. That came up twice. And that has led to an obvious question. If the holdout juror was Catholic, did that have any impact on how he viewed the case? Well, his brother says no.

And now the holdout juror himself has spoken out. And he has his own explanation for why he voted the way he did. But before we get there, there's one more issue we have to deal with. Did this juror lie on the questionnaire? This is probably the biggest question coming out of all of this because if he was truthful, then we have to be very careful about what we're saying. If he disclosed the relevant information and the attorneys in court knew about it, that does not make him responsible for their decision to keep him on a jury or mean that he was unqualified at all.

But if he deliberately failed to disclose something that the questionnaire required him to disclose, that's a completely different situation. Massachusetts law specifically makes willful misrepresentation of a material fact on the questionnaire a crime. And that's why several legal commenters have said the questionnaire needs to be examined. But what does this actually mean, though, for Lindsay's case? This is where I think some people online have gotten ahead of themselves, because I've seen people suggest that discovering these things about the holdout juror means the case should automatically be dismissed. But that's not how this works.

The trial already ended in a mistrial. And there are still legal questions surrounding the mistrial itself, which we'll get into. Was there manifest necessity for Judge Sullivan to declare the mistrial? Was the decision legally proper? Can the state retry the case? And what happens with double jeopardy? Those are questions for the court. And the fact that people now have concerns about one juror doesn't automatically answer those questions for the court.

But at the same time, it would be. a mistake to say that the juror's background is completely irrelevant just because the mistrial has already happened. If there is evidence that he knowingly lied on a required questionnaire, that is something the court and the lawyers need to know about. If he did not lie, then that's something people need to know too, because the public conversation should not be based on assumptions. And we can also have these conversations about whether a juror should be looked into further without doxing them, having people show up at their house, harassing family members, and everything else is going on, cyber harassing them. Former prosecutor Margaret McLean also raised concerns about

the online exposure and asked this question. What happens to jury service if ordinary people become afraid that their personal histories will be put on the internet? Just because they served on a controversial case. What does this mean for jury service? That is a legitimate concern and one that I have actually in 2026. Jury service depends on people being willing to participate. And if people start thinking

that serving on a jury means having their address, family members, and personal history broadcast to millions of strangers, that could have consequences well beyond this one case. At the same time, there is a legitimate public interest, in accountability. If a juror lies on a questionnaire, that is not something we should ignore either. If a juror deliberately disregards the judge's instructions, that's something the court should also be able to address. If a juror commits a crime, that should be treated as a crime. But those

questions need to be answered with evidence, not internet speculation and not outing this man. So now, let's actually get into what this juror has said happened from his perspective because he has finally spoken out. Not on camera, at least not yet. I suspect he might one day. But he did talk privately with a YouTuber named Ray Marcell, who runs the YouTube channel Fugitive TV. And Ray says that he spent about an hour on the phone with him before we get into that conversation that they had. I want to explain how we know this actually happened, right? Because it's just it's just ray's word right but there's understandably a lot of skepticism online so ray did show the man's jury summons it identified the court the date he was scheduled to appear and the jury

number associated with him ray also showed documents that he said came directly from his research to the man's history he says he contacted the juror after his identity had already been exposed online and after going back and researching the allegations surrounding his past, eventually the juror agreed to talk to him. And that conversation completely changed the picture that Ray had been presenting on his channel. And it also gave us something we hadn't had before, the holdout's own explanation of what happened. So let's start with a question that has probably generated the most speculation.

Did he lie on his juror questionnaire? According to Ray, the answer he got directly from the juror was no. He told Ray that he did not lie. He said he checked the box asking whether he had ever been arrested, and he said he remembers doing it because the questionnaire then required him to explain what happened. According to his account, he disclosed the arrest, and he says that he was questioned about it during the jury selection process. And after that, he was selected.

Now, that is a very important claim because if that's accurate, it changes the situation completely. It means the attorneys and the court knew and chose to keep him on anyway. But right now, we don't have his completed questionnaire. So I don't think we can say yet that he definitely told all of the truth, right? But the point is, he says that he disclosed it and was questioned about it. That really matters. In that moment, we need to stop speculating unless the court brings up a concern. Then there's the 2021 incident itself. NBC10's reporting focused heavily on the allegations made against him involving his former wife. So according to the police report, his teenage nephew called 911 and accused him of

grabbing his wife by the throat, throwing her into a dresser while their infant was present. The criminal charge was later dismissed and his former wife said that she did not want to testify again because she was worried about losing custody of her daughter. But the juror gave Ray a very different explanation for the circumstances surrounding that relationship. Ray says that the juror told him that he had actually filed for divorce first. According to the divorce records, Ray obtained. He filed for divorce in March of 2022 and cited September 25th, 2021 as the date of the irretrievable breakdown of his marriage. His ex-wife later filed a counterclaim. And that counterclaim also referenced September 25th, 2021. So there is documentation showing that both sides identified the same date as significant to the

breakdown of the marriage. But the reasons each side gave for what happened are different. The juror also told Ray that his marriage had essentially been fraudulent because according to him, he later learned that his wife wasn't legally in the country and that an immigration petition he had filed on her behalf had been denied. Ray showed what he said was a letter from U.S. citizenship and immigration services dated April 1st, 2021. The letter stated that the form I-130 petition have been filed on behalf of the juror's wife and that the petition was being denied. His explanation was that once he learned about the immigration situation, the marriage began falling apart. Now again, this is where we have to separate documents from interpretations. The immigration letter can establish that a petition was

denied. The divorce records can establish who filed and what was alleged in the divorce proceedings, but those documents don't independently establish every part of the juror's explanation about what happened inside that marriage. That's his account, and his account is different from the version that had been circulating online. Ray also said that the juror told him that the story surrounding his nephew wasn't completely accurate. He said that the juror told him that there were things about that incident people didn't know and that the full truth would eventually come out. He also pointed out that his nephew was so much larger than he was. According to Ray, he said the nephew was about six foot two while the juror is around five foot seven. But Ray acknowledged this

does not give anybody the right to hit somebody. But it does illustrate the larger point the juror was trying to make that he believes the public got only one side of the story and he wants the rest of it hurt. Now let's get into the jury room. This is where things get really interesting because this is the first time we're hearing the holdouts version of the jury room or the deliberation room. And it is very different from what the other jurors described. According to Ray, the juror told him that from the very beginning, the jury was divided. And on this point, his account actually lines up with what Paula Devalon told reporters. He said that eight jurors were leaning toward finding Lindsay not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, two were leaning guilty and two

were undecided. The juror says that he was one of the two who believed Lindsay was guilty. And according to him, that position never changed. He believed Lindsay was guilty from the beginning. The other jurors, according to his account, were trying to convince the remaining four jurors to come around to their position. And this is one of the biggest differences between his account and the accounts we've already heard. The other jurors described themselves as working through the evidence and gradually convincing people, but he apparently viewed it differently. According to Ray, the holdout jurors said that he felt that the eight jurors who were

initially leaning toward an insanity verdict were acting more like activists. He believed they had essentially entered the deliberation room already convinced of the answer. And he felt they were trying to persuade everybody else to do. join them. So now we have one group of jurors describing the process one way and the holdout describing it another way. But there's one thing that both sides seem to agree on. People changed their minds. The final 11 to 1 split did not exist from the beginning and developed over the course of the deliberations. According to Ray, the holdout said there was another juror who continued voting guilty alongside him for most of the deliberations.

Eventually, however, she changed her vote and that left him alone. Ray said the holdout wasn't sure whether she changed her mind because of pressure from the other jurors. He just knew that she ultimately joined them and he did not. So why did he believe Lindsay was guilty? This is really at the heart of the entire controversy. Because if we're going to understand what happened, we have to actually hear the reasoning from the person who caused the mistrial. According to Ray, he said that he believes Lindsay knew exactly what she was doing. He pointed to what he considered the preparation involved.

Lindsay waited for Patrick Clancy to leave. She sent Patrick out of the house and then she carried out what happened. He believes those actions showed planning and awareness. He also focused heavily on the manner in which the children were killed. According to Ray, the juror believed the fact that Lindsay strangled each. child separately demonstrated that she had time to think about what she was doing. In his view, this wasn't something that happened in one instantaneous moment. There was preparation, and these were individual acts with time between them. And he believed that showed that Lindsay

understood right from wrong. That's fundamentally where his interpretation of the evidence diverged from the other jurors. The other jurors looked at the same evidence and saw a woman suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder, who they believed could have been experiencing psychosis. He looked at those same circumstances and saw preparation and decision making. And he concluded that Lindsay was legally responsible. So what about reasonable doubt, though? That was the biggest point of disagreement between the holdout and the other jurors. The other jurors have said that he acknowledged having reasonable doubt.

They said they repeatedly explained that if he had a reasonable doubt, the law required him to find Lindsay not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. And they decided his refusal to do that as the reason the jury ultimately became deadlock. But when Ray asked him about the deliberations, the holdout gave a very different version. According to Ray, he told him that he never told the other jurors that he had reasonable doubt. He said he always believed Lindsay was guilty and maintained that he believed she was sane when she killed the children. He said that he felt that she was saying by the preparation she did. How, you know, she waited for her husband to leave, sent him out.

The preparation showed that she was sane and knew what she was doing, pretty much knew right from wrong, before she did what she did. And that it wasn't a quick death with the kids, you know, that she took her time and did to the kid each one that she did. strangled each one pretty much, you know, in separate rooms. So he felt because of that, he felt that she knew that what she was doing was right from wrong. I get it. Look, in truth, I think all of the optics aside, them saying that he said he had reasonable doubt is what created a lot of this controversy around him. And this is incredibly important because the entire controversy around the holdout has been, at least in part, about the allegation that he supposedly

said he had reasonable doubt, but still would not acquit. That's what several jurors described, and that's what caused so much outrage. A juror can't just decide to disregard reasonable doubt because they don't like the outcome. But the holdouts account, as relayed by Ray, is different. He's saying that he never believed she was not guilty by reasons of insanity. And he believed that because of the evidence, that's why he believed it. And then there's the water bottle incident. Remember the water bottle incident?

This became one of the strangest details from the jurors interviews. Nick said, remember that the holdout took the exercise band that had been used in the killings, wrapped it around an empty water bottle, and pulled it. Nick said he was shocked and said he didn't understand why somebody would recreate something like that in a jury room. He viewed it as inappropriate. But the holdout gave Ray an explanation. According to Ray, he said he did it to demonstrate what the exercise band was capable of doing. He wanted to show the other jurors what he believed the band had been used for

and described it as setting an example. He apparently felt that the other jurors didn't understand the mechanics of what happened. So he used the bottle to demonstrate it to show the other jurors the mechanics. Jurers were not agreeing, some agreeing, some not agreeing. But he said from day one that he always felt that she was guilty and he never displayed or said anything about reasonable doubt. That was one of the reasons why he put the water bottle on the table with the string attached to it and to tell them, hey, this is what she probably did to her children. Again, you can have your own opinion about whether that was appropriate. The jurors certainly did. but the holdout's explanation is different from them saying that he was playing around with evidence or treating the situation like a game.

According to him, there was a purpose behind what he was doing, and he believes the other jurors misunderstood that purpose. And then there is another part of his account that is worth talking about. He apparently believes that eight jurors who initially favored an insanity verdict were essentially activists. I think that gives us some insight into how differently the two sides view the deliberations. The jurors who voted for lack of criminal responsibility described themselves as carefully examining evidence, questioning assumptions, and eventually convincing several people who initially disagreed with them. The holdout apparently saw the same process as eight people who came into the room already convinced of Lindsay's innocence and spent the entire deliberation trying to persuade everyone else.

And then there's the question of Catholicism. This became especially controversial because the prosecution had brought up Catholic doctrine during the trial, specifically that murder is a sin. And once people learned that the holdout juror was Catholic, some immediately began assuming and asking whether his religious beliefs influenced his vote. But according to Ray, the holdout himself gave no indication that his Catholic faith was the reason for his vote. That doesn't necessarily prove that religion, played no role. We can't read another person's mind and know every influence on their decision.

But according to Ray, there is currently no evidence that Catholic doctrine swayed his verdict. So that brings us to the holdout juror's biggest complaint, something that he wanted people to understand above everything else. He believes the public has only heard one side. He's heard other jurors describing him as someone who would not engage, would not get up and look at the evidence, and someone who acknowledged reasonable doubt but refused to act on it, someone who wouldn't listen and was essentially a rogue juror. But his response is, that's not who he is. According to Ray, he believes some of what has been said about him is either incomplete or half truth or simply false. And he wants the opportunity to explain himself. I think most importantly, he says he's never

told the other jurors that he had reasonable doubt. Contradiction of what several of the other jurors have said and that disagreement is never going to be resolved by arguing about it online and maybe something that needs to be investigated further by those that should investigate. But what about the allegations against him? Because he also wants to push back against the way his past has been portrayed. According to Ray, he believes the 2021 incident has been presented without enough context. He says the divorce was initiated by him and that the immigration situation played a role in the breakdown of the marriage. He says his nephew's account of the later confrontation doesn't tell the entire story. And most importantly, he says he was not convicted of the 2021 allegations. The charge was indeed dismissed. That's a fact. Even if people have strong feelings about the allegations

themselves. It was dismissed. At the same time, a dismissed charge doesn't mean the allegations never happened, and we can't acknowledge that without pretending to know more than the records establish. This is where I think the conversation about his questionnaire does become important, because if he disclosed the arrest, as he says he did, then people need to know that. And if he didn't disclose something, he was required to disclose, that's a different issue. But we can't determine which one happened just by looking at the fact. that he had a record. And regardless of how any of us feel about what did or did not happen in the deliberation room, in no world, is it okay for him and his family to be harassed,

online or in real life? And according to Ray, while they were actually talking on the phone, someone was outside the holdouts home. Ray said he believed the person was pretending to be doing work around the property, but this kind of behavior had been happening. since his identity was exposed online. And his family says they've experienced it too. His brother told the New York Post that people had been calling them repeatedly and leaving notes at his mother's house. He said the family was afraid to leave. That's gone far beyond people disagreeing with a juror's decision. And whatever we think about the holdouts vote, there's a difference between investigating a potential issue with a jury selection and deliberations and targeting someone and their family. If there is

evidence he violated the law or lied on the court document that should be investigated through the legal system through the court. If there is evidence that he violated the judge's instruction, that should be addressed through the court, through the legal system. But showing up as someone's home is an entirely different thing. Doxing them online is an entirely different thing. So at this point, we've heard several different versions of what happened inside that jury room. We've heard from jurors who were willing to talk publicly about the deliberations. We've heard the allegations surrounding the holdout juror, and now we have heard his side of the story as it was relayed through Ray. And there are still some pretty significant disagreements between those accounts. And while all of that was

playing out publicly, Lindsay's case has still been moving forward behind the scenes. Because a mistrial does not mean the case is over. It keeps going. And Lindsay's team has been busy. They have been very busy. They have filed a new motion that could have a significant impact on what happens next. And this is where things could get really interesting with the Lindsay Clancy case, because after everything that happened during that first trial and the jury, ultimately being unable to reach a unanimous verdict, the defense is now trying to change the trajectory of the case before it even gets back in front of another jury. They haven't just been sitting around waiting for the district attorney's office to decide whether it wants to try this case all over again.

They started fighting that possibility almost immediately. And there are actually two separate legal arguments happening right now. And I want to go through both of them because they're very different legal arguments. The first is the motion that Kevin Redington, Lindsay's attorney, filed asking the judge to enter a required finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. The second is a double jeopardy issue, which is where attorney Martin Weinberg has now entered the case. So before we talk about what any of this means, I want to actually walk through the first motion itself because I think that it's important to see exactly what Lindsay's attorneys are arguing. The defense is making a very specific argument.

about the evidence that was presented during the trial and whether that evidence was legally sufficient for the Commonwealth to ever get a conviction. The filing is titled Renewed Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty. And it says that Lindsay Clancy is asking the court under Massachusetts rule of criminal procedure 25B2 to enter a required finding of not guilty on each indictment. Essentially, they are asking the judge to look at the judge. the evidence that came out during the trial and determined that the Commonwealth did not present enough legally sufficient evidence to allow a rational jury to find her criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt. And there's an important reason they're asking the judge to do this now.

Since the first trial ended in a mistrial, the defense is saying that before the Commonwealth gets another opportunity to put Lindsay on trial all over again, the court should decide whether the evidence presented during the first trial was legally sufficient in the first. place. The motion then goes back to the beginning. It explains that after January 24, 2023, Lindsay was charged and arraigned from Brigham and Women's Hospital while she was being treated for the life-threatening injuries she suffered during her suicide attempt. And then in September of 2023, the grand jury returned indictments charging three counts of murder and three counts of strangulation. The trial eventually happened. The jury deliberated for seven days. And on September

4th, 2026, after multiple reports of deadlock and after the court gave the jury the Tui Rodriguez instructions, the jury ultimately reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict. And this is where the defense motion immediately focuses on the 11 to 1 split. According to the motion, 11 jurors were prepared to find Lindsay not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. One juror was not one. The defense then points to the four persons note to the judge, which stated that the remaining juror had acknowledged doubt but was refusing to apply that doubt to the case as the law required. The defense had asked the Supreme Judicial Court to order an inquiry into that juror. The request was denied by a single justice that same day and the trial court then

declared a mistrial. And now the defense is saying that the jury's vote isn't actually the basis of this motion. So that's really important. They're not saying 11 jurors voted for us, therefore the judge should rule for us. Instead, they're saying the judge has to look at the actual evidence that was presented during the trial and decide whether the Commonwealth proved what it was legally required. The motion then gets into the legal standard. Under Rule 25, the question is essentially whether looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational fact finder could have found every essential

element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense emphasizes that the law doesn't allow a conviction to be based on conjunction. In other words, the Commonwealth can't ask a jury to simply fill in the gaps with insumptions. There has to be evidence supporting the elements of the crime. This is where Lindsay's mental state becomes the central issue again, because Lindsay's defense wasn't that the children weren't killed. They acknowledged that Lindsay killed. They acknowledged that Lindsay killed her children. The issue throughout the trial was over whether she was criminally responsible for what she did. And the defense's argument is that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that she was. The motion lays out two ways the Commonwealth could have met that burden. The first would have been to

prove that Lindsay did not have a mental disease or defect. The second would have been to establish that even though she had a mental disease or defect, that she still retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. And the defense says that the first route was essentially closed off by the Commonwealth's own witnesses. This is one of the biggest arguments in the motion. The defense points out that all six forensic mental health experts, three called by the prosecution and three called by the defense, they all agreed that Lindsay was suffering from a serious mental illness on January 24, 2023. All of them, both three from the prosecution,

three from the defense, all of them agree that Lindsay was suffering from a serious mental illness. They disagreed about exactly what the illness was. They disagreed about diagnosis, and they disagreed about what the illness meant for Lindsay's criminal responsibility. But according to the defense, they did not disagree about the basic fact that she was mentally ill. So the defense says the Commonwealth couldn't realistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsay had no mental disease or defect at all. And that meant the Commonwealth's case had to rely on the second route. It had to prove that Lindsay had a mental illness but still retained the substantial capacity required under Massachusetts law. But the defense, the defense says that the Commonwealth didn't do that either.

This is where the motion starts attacking the specific evidence that the prosecution's experts relied upon. The defense identifies four general categories. First, Lindsay was able to drive, make a phone call to a pediatrician, and St. Patrick out to run errands. Second, the killings involved a sequence of actions that took place over roughly 18 to 20 minutes. Third, Lindsay had conducted internet searches about medication, psychosis, and related subjects in the weeks before January 24th. And fourth, the defense points to the fact that Lindsay's later descriptions of the voice

she said she was hearing were inconsistent. The defense says that even if you accept all of those things, they do not actually answer the legal question. They show that Lindsay could perform familiar tasks and that she could make decisions and carry out a sequence of actions. But the defense says that isn't the same thing as proving that she could appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing or conform her conduct to the law. They're essentially saying, yes, could still do things like drive or use a phone or communicate

with her husband and answer a phone and carry out familiar tasks. But someone can be capable of performing those kinds of routine activities while also experiencing a severe psychiatric crisis. And the defense points specifically to Dr. Zaisal's testimony that someone experiencing psychosis can still perform practiced activities, including things like driving or using a computer because psychosis does not necessarily mean that a person is completely disconnected from reality every second of the day. The motion also points to Dr. Heilbrun's characterization of Lindsay State, particularly the idea that she believed she was killing the children out of love and preventing

them from suffering. And the defense says that reasoning itself is evidence of delusional thinking rather than evidence that she retained the capacity to understand that what she was doing was wrong. So essentially, the defense is asking the judge to separate two things that can look very similar from the outside, the ability to physically carry out an action and the mental capacity to understand the wrongfulness of that action and conform your behavior to the law. And then they come back to what happened after the killings, the things that Lindsay did immediately afterward. She comes. her wrists and neck and then jumped from a second-story window suffering injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down.

The defense points to the weeks leading up to January 24th as well. According to the motion, Lindsay had sought help from multiple medical providers, contacted a suicide hotline, gone to an emergency department, and admitted herself to a psychiatric hospital, and the defense points out that she has remained in psychiatric institutional care under one-to-one suicide supervision ever since. Again, they aren't saying that any of those facts automatically prove that Lindsay was not criminally responsible, but they're using them as part of the overall argument, that the evidence showed a woman experiencing an acute psychiatric crisis and that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

she nevertheless retained the specific capacities required for criminal responsibility. And then, there's the 11-1 jury. The defense goes, out of its way to say this motion isn't based on the fact that 11 jurors voted in Lindsay's favor. A hung jury is a hung jury and a case doesn't just go away because they could not reach a verdict. The defense actually acknowledges that in the motion. They say that a hung jury isn't a verdict and that a mistrial ordinarily allows the Commonwealth to retry a defendant. So they're making a different argument. They're saying that regardless of what the jurors did, the judge has an independent responsibility to determine whether the evidence was legally sufficient.

And if the judge, if the judge concludes that it wasn't, the defense says that proper result isn't another trial. It's an acquittal. And an acquittal is what creates the double jeopardy protection that would prevent the Commonwealth from trying the same case all over again. So that's the first major route Lindsay's defense is pursuing. They're saying, you already had your trial. You presented all of your evidence. And when you look at the evidence under the legal standard, it was not enough to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judge should end the case now rather than sending it back to another jury. But there's something else developing. And this is where things get even more interesting

because while Reddington was filing this renewed Rule 25 motion, Another attorney was stepping into the case, and that attorney is Martin Weinberg. And if that name sounds familiar, it's because Weinberg was involved in Karen Reed's legal battle over double jeopardy after her first trial ended in a mistrial. So on September 15th, Weinberg filed a limited appearance in Lindsay's case specifically for the purpose of her in connection with a forthcoming motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds

and related matters. The motion itself hasn't even been filed yet, but Weinberg has formally entered the case to work on that upcoming constitutional challenge. So now Lindsay's defense is essentially attacking the possibility of a second trial from two different directions. The Rule 25 motion says the evidence

wasn't legally sufficient and asks the judge to enter in acquittal. The double jeopardy argument is going to say that under the circumstances surrounding this particular mistrial, the Constitution should prevent the Commonwealth from trying Lindsay again. So where does that leave Lindsay right now? The Commonwealth, the prosecution still has not announced whether it will retry Lindsay, but the defense, meanwhile, is actively trying to prevent that from happening, another trial from happening. The next major date is September 29th. This is when the court is scheduled to address the next steps in the case, including the defense's motion. And there are a few

different ways this could go. The judge could grant the Rule 25 motion, which would end the prosecution with an acquittal, or the judge could deny it, and the defense could then pursue its double jeopardy argument that could also be denied, leaving the comment. Leaving the Commonwealth with the option of seeking a retrial or the district attorney could decide not to retry, Lindsay. I mean, some of you say it's unlikely. I think it's possible, but you never know. But before we wrap up this episode, there's one more thing that I want to mention. There's already another interview coming that I think is going to give us a very different perspective on everything that's happened since the mistrial. Patrick Clancy recently sat down with 60 minutes correspondent Ross Douthat.

And for the first time, we're also going to hear from Patrick's wife, his now wife, Dr. Rachel Danis, as she speaks publicly about being pulled into the center of this enormous public conversation. Patrick and Rachel's relationship became a huge topic online while Lindsay was on trial. their private lives were picked apart, analyzed, and at times turned into elaborate conspiracy theories about whether the two of them somehow had a role in what happened to Patrick's children. There's absolutely no evidence that Patrick or Rachel were involved in the murders of Cora, Dawson, and Callan. And I think that's worth repeating because there's a difference between asking legitimate questions about a case and taking pieces of somebody's private. life, filling in the blanks with speculation and then repeating that speculation so many times that people start treating it like fact. Patrick has spent the last three and a half years

living with something that most of us can't even begin to imagine. He lost all three of his children and ultimately his marriage. And then he had to testify in the trial of the woman who killed them. The woman he loved, he had to listen to people, debate what happened inside his own home and eventually watched the case end without a verdict. Now, weeks after that mistrial, he's finally talking about what all of this has actually been like for him. Patrick is expected to talk about his grief, his mental health, and his memories as the father of Cora, Dawson, and Callan, and the conspiracy theories that have spread across social media during and after the trial. And there's one moment from the preview that honestly

stopped me when I heard it. Patrick told Dow thought that he still talks to his children all of the time. And when he was asked, what do you say? Patrick answered, help me. I talk to them. What do you say? What do you say? Help me all the time. Do they help you? I like to believe they do. It's a way I stay connected to them. That's a very different side of this case than the one we have spent so much time talking about. We've been talking about the motions, the mistrial, the holdout juror, the possibility of another trial. All of that is important because those are what will determine what happens next. But underneath, all of it are those three children, Patrick's three children, who never got the chance to grow up, and a father who is still trying to figure out how to live in a world without them.

And on Sunday, we are going to hear directly from Patrick and his wife, who has largely remained out of the public eye, while her name and her relationship with Patrick have been dissected online. I'm personally really interested to hear what they choose to share, what they want people to understand about their lives, and what Patrick has to say after everything that has happened. And of course, after it airs, we'll be talking about it right here on Hidden True Crime, because this story clearly. is not over. We still don't know whether Lindsay Clancy will ever face another jury or what the next chapter of this case is going to look like, but we will be here to cover it all. Thank you for subscribing and for supporting hidden true crime.