Law&Crime Sidebar - Lindsay Clancy Jury Room’s SHOCKING Secret Revealed

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

New details from inside the Lindsay Clancy jury room are raising serious questions after a juror claimed the lone holdout used an exercise band on a water bottle during deliberations. Other jurors are now speaking out about the tense 11-1 deadlock, what they believed was missing from the prosecution’s case, and why they were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber walks through the explosive allegations, conflicting juror accounts, and what they could mean for a possible retrial with Law&Crime reporter Sierra Gillespie.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Taking care of your health just got easier – start here with Zocdoc: https://zocdoc.com/JESSE #sponsoredHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A juror from the Lindsay Clancy trial has just spoken out for the very first time offering brand new insights into what happened in that deliberation room. From the shocking new accusations about this holdout juror to Patrick Clancy's 911 phone call, why jurors lean toward a not guilty verdict? We're going to break down his comments. We're going to break down the comments from the other jurors that have spoken out, all to understand what happened behind closed doors and how this might influence the price. prosecution's next steps and a possible retrial of Lindsay Clancy. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Talk about being inside the jury room for the Lindsay Clancy case. You know, a male juror just spoke out about what happened behind closed doors. And this is on top, by the way, of several other jurors who have been doing media interviews, too. And I'm not going to lie to you. What he just said was shocking, shocking, shocking. Raises a lot of questions if you have been following this case. So what I want to do is I want to go. is I want to get into what he just said, particularly about this lone holdout juror, very controversial here,

and this is on top of what the other jurors said, and I'm going to bring in somebody who was in that courtroom, saw those jurors for themselves. I want to make sense of all these allegations. Now look, we know what happened at this trial. Lindsay Clancy was accused of murdering her three children by strangling them to death with exercise bans back in their Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023. five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, eight-month-old Callan. The prosecution claimed that this was a deliberate, premeditated, conscious set of killings that she was facing first-degree murder as the top charge. But we also know that second-degree murder, manslaughter were also options, as well as not guilty

and not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, insanity. That is what defense attorney Kevin Redington jumped on, that Lindsay Clancy, yes, She killed her children, but that she was in the middle of postpartum psychosis, citing overmedication, neglectful treatment plans, serious, serious mental illness. The legal question was, could she not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions, the illegality of her actions? Could she not conform her behavior to the law? And this jury deliberated for about 38 hours over the course of seven days. They ultimately were deadlocked. They could not come to a unanimous decision.

And we come to find out that it appears it was 11 to 1 in favor of voting not guilty by reason of insanity. And we saw this play out with the jury sending back a note at one point, accusing a lone holdout juror of not following the law on reasonable doubt. This led the judge and the prosecution and the defense to decide what to do next. Even at one point on the heels of the judge about to declare a mistrial bringing the jury in, Reddington then petitioned the Supreme Judicial, court to get involved. Now, ultimately, they chose not to. This was after a brief Zoom hearing, and trial court judge William Sullivan brought the jurors back in and declared a mistrial. Now it becomes a question if the prosecution is going to retry Lindsay Clancy on what charges, what charge, how they would ultimately try this case? Would it be the same strategy, same theory,

witnesses? Right now, Clancy remains in a psychiatric hospital. Her next hearing is scheduled for September 29th. But I want to start with the latest. I want to start with what the this new juror just said. Now, before we get into this, I just have to let you guys know, this is a big case that we've been following here on Sidebar, but we're kind of limited in how much we can show you in this program, right? YouTube, but also, you know, 30, 40 minutes we try to get to. That is why we've developed the case file section on the Long Crime Plus app.

So for all of these big cases, we're opening up the evidence fault. So you can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes all firsthand. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long-and-crum. crime and court TV shows. And right now, we've got a special offer. Use my promo code sidefall. You get your first three months of long crime plus for just $2.99 a month. That is 50% off the regular monthly price. Hope you can check it out. Okay. So a juror has spoken out for the first time. This is juror number 10. Nick Darjeet sat down for an interview with ABC's GMA. Good Morning America.

Just aired this morning. And he said that this loan holdout juror allegedly took one of the exercise vans, You know the ones that the prosecution said Clancy used to kill her kids and wrapped it around a water bottle. So seemingly to recreate, mimic the act, Darjeet doesn't know for sure, but this apparently happened in the deliberation room. Darjeet saying, quote, I was so shocked, didn't make any sense to me. We're not here to play detective. It's not a game of clue. This is serious. I asked him, why are you doing that?

Dargy called this disgusting. He added, quote, there were several times. I would ask him to show us evidence or describe a witness testimony that helped approve 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. That would be a hung jury. That is our justice system. And I mean, Darjeet even claimed that this lone holdout juror explicitly said, quote, I don't know if the prosecution or defense proved their case. And Darjeet claimed that this juror, at times, wasn't engaged, scrolling on his phone, while.

people were trying to talk to them. Now, that one doesn't necessarily make sense to me because jurors are usually not allowed to have phones during deliberations, and that would be the only time that they would all be talking about the case, or they should be talking about the case, if that's what he meant. So I'll talk about that one in a minute. But what was also interesting is that Darjeet said that when they first began their deliberations, some jurors were leaning toward finding Lindsay Clancy guilty. But ultimately, he said he found the process. case inconsistent, that they seem to side more with the testimony of the defense experts. And he also confirmed that he and the other 10 jurors were ready to vote not guilty by reason

of insanity, lack of criminal responsibility. He said, I think we felt defeated, meaning in the end that there was no verdict. By the way, defense attorney Kevin Redington said after the mistrial that his client was, quote, robbed by this man, referring to the holdout juror and added that he hopes that this holdout juror can, quote, sleep at night. And when speaking with GMA, Redington added, what I was upset about was after that lengthy trial on the work that everyone put into this case, including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their job, their family, where a gentleman had an opinion. But that according to the note from the four lady that he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge,

that's not right. And that's why I was upset. And as I said before, Darjey's comments come on the heels of other jurors who have spoken out. For instance, a juror spoke to CBS News and offered a very different perspective. Quote, the standalone juror was not the only one who was unwilling to see things from the other side. So I'm going to 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 by the way, that is the essence of the Tui-Rodriguez jury instruction that was given by the judge when there's a deadlock. Essentially, yes, jurors, go back, deliberate, but don't abandon your convictions. This juror added, quote, the prosecution

didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say, yep, 100%, I'm certain she did it or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area. And by the way, this brings me to three female jurors who spoke with NBC10 Boston. And one told the outlet about this holdout juror saying, quote, he admitted. he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms. I was so excited. 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. Another juror saying that the holdout had, quote, the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.

Now, in my opinion, yeah, I mean, that's a big deal to consider. And again, I kind of want to question who to, you know, not even put blame on with this, because I want to discuss what this. means. But of course, that's the end of the day. That's what makes this case really, really difficult. And you had another juror who actually claimed that this holdout was, quote, very arrogant. Quote, he really did not take anything that anybody said. He tried to ask a question about the medications, and we went back to the report. We had the toxicology report. We could see exactly the amounts. The nurses testifying during the trial spoke to that. That was a question that he had. And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave him. Now, look, the problem with all

of this is that this deliberation room, this jury deliberation room, is now kind of like a trial for us. Who's telling the truth? Who's credible? What happened exactly? One account versus another? What do we believe? You know, you go back to what Judge Sullivan said initially when the jury said that they were, you know, at an impasse and they sent out this note. He said, look, I can't side with 11 jurors over one or vice versa about who's telling the truth about the law and reasonable doubt. What do they know? You know, who's right about it? And look, the court, by law, how? to be very careful not to inject itself into the jury deliberations. And one of the jurors, I got to say this too, identified as Kelly Farina, told NBC10 Boston,

quote, Reddington brought all these people in, people that loved her, her family, her in-laws, even Patrick, Patrick Clancy, was very compassionate. So we appreciated the fact that Redington didn't just delay the trial and drag it on with a bunch of more medical BS and get more to the point really of who Lindsay is and what her life was like. So giving you an idea about why this. jurors maybe sided with the defense. And two of the jurors added that the problem with the prosecution's case, quote, I just found it to be harsh. Very, very harsh. And then there was a quote, we weren't trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did, and she's admitted that. We're trying

to figure out if she knew right from wrong at that time with everyone saying she loved their children so much. Everything proved that she loved their children, so she had to have snapped. And it's also being reported by outlets like Fox News that Farina was a Karen Reid supporter. They cited this post from June 18, 2025, in a free Karen Reid Facebook group. This is after Karen Reid was acquitted. It says, quote, over and out page, Massachusetts jury did their rightful duty today. Karen's free. Again, this is allegedly from Farina. I got to be honest about something real quick. I put off scheduling my doctor's appointments. I know I shouldn't, I shouldn't, but I don't want to deal with the phone calls, the voicemails, the endless phone tag. And then when I finally call, like the next appointment

is months away. It always feels harder than it should be. And that is why this episode is sponsored by Zoc Doc. So Zoc Doc is a free app and website that lets you search and compare high quality in network doctors. They show reviews from real patients, the detailed doctor profile, so I can compare my options and choose the doctor that fits with my preferences. You know what's great about Zoc Doc? Is that I can actually see the appointment openings and click to book. You don't need the phone tag, the phone calls back and forth. You can make so many of your appointments through Zoc Doc right now. And you don't got to make a single phone call, which I think is amazing. Your health matters. Taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor right now with Zock.

Gock. Head on over to Zock.com slash jesse to get started. Check that appointment off your to-do list. That's ZOC, do-o-c.com slash Jesse. So let me bring on somebody who was in that courtroom, saw these jurors, can make sense of this entire trial. Let me bring on Long Crime Reporter, Scandal host, Sierra Gillespie. Sierra, thank you so much for coming on. It's great to see you. Jesse, I'm so honored to be on sidebar. I'm so excited.

Thank you for having me. Of course. I mean, when we heard this was happening and we're hearing these comments from juror Darjey today, I was thinking like, you saw the jurors. you would have a good insight into what happened here. So when you hear juror Darje these comments about this holdout juror allegedly using an exercise band to potentially seemingly recreate the act, I don't want you to identify anybody, but do you have an idea about who this holdout juror was? Did you get the sense that this person would do something like this? because at the end of the day, we don't know what happened behind the deliberation in the deliberation room.

But this is a, you're not supposed to do that. This allegation is, I never in my wildest dreams could have imagined that something like this would have happened in the deliberation room. According to Nick Darjey, by the way, that's what he alleges. But when I was picturing what was going on in the deliberation room, never would that ever cross my mind once? And I will tell you, Nick Dargy was, I don't know, three feet away from me because he was just kind of where he was seated. I was in the front row. he was two in in the front row, so I kind of had a close eye on him. And the person who I just kept going back to, this is speculation, by the way, but the one

juror who stood out to me the most who I thought, maybe this is a holdout, was a man in the back row. And this man, every day he was there, he was dressed very casually. He was in a t-shirt. It almost looks like he, I'm not going to say he wasn't taking it seriously, but he wasn't dressed up in the way that some of their jurors were wearing like blazers or business professional outfits. He wore a t-shirt, whatever he was wearing.

And he never took notes. That's the number one thing that stood out to me because you have a sea of these jurors with their notebooks, just scribbling, scribbling, scribbling, turning the pages, whatever. Like they're writing down. They're looking at the witnesses and whatever. And he looked at the witnesses. He followed along with the judge, if he was talking, or Redington, whoever it may have been. He did follow along.

But I never saw him take a note. And here's why I think, Jesse, he might have been the holdout, is when Judge Sullivan was giving the jury instructions, they're long, right? And they're kind of tedious. so he gave each of them a pamphlet. And it was, I don't know, at least five pages that they had to turn. And you could tell that the jurors, including Nick Darjeet, by the way, were following along because when he would say something, they all flipped at the same time, you know, they're

following along on the pages. This one juror, who I'm just speculating, hypothesizing, could have been the holdout. He didn't even have the pamphlet on his lap. He wasn't looking. He didn't. I don't know where it was. And because it all came down to reasonable doubt and they had to go back to the instructions time and time again, that's why I'm going.

wondering, could it have been this guy? And it leads to the support from Darjeet's claims that this juror was not engaged that despite he couldn't present evidence in support of his position. But I got to tell you, if this is true regarding the exercise band, are you surprised the jurors, the jury foreperson, didn't put that in the note? You know, jurors aren't supposed to recreate the scenes. And I wonder, wouldn't that have been a more pertinent thing to tell the court about, that aspect using the band to on a water bottle rather than the law in reasonable doubt. Maybe not. Maybe not.

I mean, I guess the idea of a juror not following the law is pretty significant and they don't know which way the court was going to go. But I also don't know how much they wanted to rat the juror out, but if this actually happened. But I was, I was saying, you know, if to complain about a juror not following the law, you would also say, and by the way, this juror is improperly using evidence in the room. I don't know. I thought that maybe they would have put that in the note and maybe the court would have done something. I mean, all of this was so shocking. The details of this case unto itself are really hard for anyone to hear. But then for the jurors to have access to the evidence and for this one holdout juror to allegedly take it out and simulate strangulation around a water bottle.

To your point, Jesse, I am wondering why the foreperson wouldn't make note of all of this. It's really severe. I mean, so too is him not following the law, allegedly. But this woman was by the books. She's been kind of spoken out or outspoken, rather, since all of this. And even before all of the deliberations wrapped, you could tell she was paying close attention. We knew that she was a professional. She had been a teacher, a fifth grade teacher. She was following along.

And the way that I imagined the deliberation room was her kind of looking at the paperwork, looking through, okay, is it first degree, second degree, manslaughter, here are all of our options. Here's what we need to determine. That's kind of what I imagined for her. So to see something, this shocking, I am surprised that she didn't make note of it. But you also hear this other jurors speaking out and saying, listen, you know, I can't put all this blame on this blown holdout juror. I have to defend this person because there were other jurors, strong personalities, maybe didn't hear the other side. And that becomes difficult for us

to understand exactly what happened because there could be an argument, did the other jurors who were voting in favor of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility? Were they properly hearing the other side? We were just talking about a USA Today opinion piece. where the writer was saying they're disturbed by what they're hearing from the jurors, that it appeared that they were more persuaded by emotion and the character of Kevin Reddington and criticizing the prosecution for apparently not having sympathy for Lindsay Clancy, whereas did they really follow the law on insanity, on lack of criminal responsibility? And so there does become a question, were the jurors who were about to vote or were planning on voting 9?

guilty, were they properly looking at the evidence in law rather than being persuaded by other factors? And it does sound like at first when they went into the deliberation room, after closings, they've got the case finally they can discuss. It doesn't sound like it was a sweep right from the beginning, that at the start, at least according to Nick Darjey, for example, that they were kind of split. Some people were voting, you know, not guilty by reason of insanity and others were voting, I mean, he didn't specify. It could have been first degree, whatever it was, so that she was guilty. And so obviously the deliberation forms, they talk, they have their opinions, but I think to your point, this case is so polarizing and so emotional. You can't have a case about three children

who were strangled by their own mother without emotions. It's just the jurors are bringing their baggage in. But also to your point, it doesn't matter about the emotion of it all. It matters the law. Was she criminally responsible in that moment? And is this something we'll ever even know what they were talking but what they really, really said. Well, and I want to get into this phone thing that the juror was scrolling through their phone in a second. We'll put that to say, I don't anticipate this holdout juror is ever going to speak.

Do you? I mean, this person seems like persona non grata that it seems like there's too many people who are impassioned by this, that if that juror was to identify themselves. And by the way, I don't know if by law the court has to identify the jurors at some point. I kind of heard reporting about that.

I'm not sure, but I would imagine this juror would not want to be identified and speak. out? If I was that juror, I would not want to speak out because I mean, some people agree with what he has to say, obviously. Others don't. But it's such a polarizing case. And if he's the one single holdout that 11 other people were agreeing essentially to vote for her to be not guilty by reason of insanity, he doesn't have a target on his back, but people are going to want to talk to him. They're going to be knocking on his door. They're going to have a lot of strong opinions because people who are following this case do have that. It's about mental health. It's raising

awareness for lack of a better term. That's kind of what it's kind of become about. And so your question, though, about whether their names are going to be released, this is something that we asked right away. I asked, can I leave my cards behind for the jurors in the deliberation room so they can reach out to us? Because at this time, we didn't know their names. Can I leave paperwork? Law and crime has specific paperwork that they can sign a waiver. All of that was denied by the court. But what I did hear from the court is that we've asked for their names and they will be released 14 days following the declaration of the mistrial. that's last Friday. So that's, you know, we're about a week out, one more week that their names could

be released. So this guy's name could be released unless maybe there's a stipulation if he is in danger. I obviously this would all have to be discussed. But for now, that's my understanding is that we would get everyone's name. And maybe I don't know. And I don't know if the prosecution would need to step in and file a motion to do that. But but I will tell you what I do find interesting about this, there have been people online who have, been defending this juror as well, this juror being the holdout. These are people who believe that Lindsay Clancy should have been found guilty. So there is a split here. Before I get into the phone, again, I'm very confused about that. When you were looking at the jurors, did they look

angry? Did they look tense? Did they give the, were they looking over at this one loan holdout juror, the person you believe it may be? I mean, did you get that sense when you were there? it's hard because we were in and out so many times there was seven days of deliberation so we start the day with the jury coming in we end the day with them leaving if there's a question they might come back or when there was multiple times that they said hey we're at a deadlock here they all came back in they were there for voir dire but generally no they weren't all staring at this one guy there wasn't a spotlight on this guy the reason that i clocked him and other journalists who i was with did because he wasn't taking notes however i will say as deliberations drug on, people got more upset, more frustrated. You could kind of tell by the way that they were carrying themselves, that they were like, really were still here after all of this. We can't agree. And at the very end, right as a mistrial was about to be declared, Judge Sullivan came forward and was talking about, excuse me, this wasn't right when it was being declared. This was the last time. This was the chewy, Tuoy Rodriguez. Yes. Yeah. So he's basically saying, you know,

reasonable doubt, pay close attention, like basically rereading everything. there were multiple female jurors who were like nodding their head they're like yeah okay reasonable doubt cool we got it does this other guy have it that's kind of what it seems like to me and what was his reaction if you were looking at him I was I was looking at him nothing

kind of like wasn't excited he wasn't smiling but kind of like a kind of situation I did see him smile multiple times so this specific juror and I will say so Nick Darjeet was in my line of sight and so was this other juror The third male juror was very far down. So I don't know necessarily he's a possibility, too, as the holdout,

but he was way farther down. I couldn't quite see him as much. But this one juror, I don't know, he really just stood out to me. I just have a feeling about it. Let me ask you this, this allegation from Darjeet that this loan holdout juror was scrolling through the phone. It doesn't make sense to me. You're not supposed to have your phone during deliberations.

In fact, as we were talking about it and we were talking to trial producer Kathy Russen, Somebody on Instagram, or X, rather, cited the Massachusetts law where you're not allowed to have your phones during the course of deliberation. So that would be the only time that these jurors are supposed to be talking to each other about the case. They're not supposed to talk about it together like at a restaurant or, you know, nothing like that. What does that mean? The juror was scrolling through the phone. That one I don't get. That stresses me out, honestly.

The idea that they were in the deliberation room and this man is just kind of like doom scrolling through his phone as they're all talking. about Lindsay Clancy's life hangs in the balance here. I mean, it's very serious the allegations that she faced. And I would like to think that all of the jurors, if I was ever charged with something, that they would all be paying really close attention. So the allegation, this man was on his phone, it stresses me out. I don't know. The only thing I could think of is perhaps we looked at the statute on mass.gov that

jurors are allowed to have their phones just not in the deliberation room. So maybe Darjey was saying he was scrolling when they were just kind of like chatting, maybe during lunch, maybe going to the bathroom, or like kind of break periods. I would hope that he wasn't actually scrolling or looking at looking up anything during deliberations because that's a huge issue. That was confusing too. Let me ask you about this. Darje also said that if the prosecution were to retry this case in the way that they did,

he believes nine times that to 10, it would be the same thing. You would have a jury that would vote not guilty by reason of insanity. What did you think about that? I mean, you watch the trial. Would that make sense to you? Because there's been a lot of now questioning about the prosecution's case, how they presented it, the witnesses, what they focused on their theories. Does that strike you as surprise? Does that make sense to you?

I think it does make sense in a way. Because, first of all, you never know what you're going to get with a jury. You don't know what baggage they're going to bring or what stood out to them in terms of evidence or witnesses, whatever it may be. But I think to me what really stood out that I felt maybe the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof was in their rebuttal witness. because two of the three Commonwealth witnesses came forward and said, yes, at the time that the children were strangled, Lindsay Clancy had a mental disease or defect, this being bipolar too. And that is one of the three prongs in terms of criminal responsibility, you know, the mental disease or defect. Could she appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions and could she conform to the law?

So for the Commonwealth witnesses to say that, that's one of the three prongs. To me, that it just spoke volumes. The rest of their case, I mean, obviously they had some good witnesses, bad witnesses, whatever. Both sides had good and bad. But that, to me, really stood out. So I do wonder if this is retried, if they would go with the same route, go the same tactics. Kevin Reddington, we asked him, after all of this, you know, would you change anything? And he said, why would I change anything?

I won. But I don't know if it's the same for the Commonwealth. I think they might switch things up. It's interesting talking about him. So Fox News reported that Redington's trying to get these charges dismissed. And he has an interesting legal theory about double jeopardy. Because, you know, look, you can't be tried for the same crime twice. Now, usually you would need some sort of verdict, some sort of resolution in order for double jeopardy to apply, not a deadlock.

And his theory is interesting, if I'm understanding it correctly, because I was talking to Mark Garagos about it on my News Nation show. And he said basically that the prosecution can't get a do-over, right? In a more extreme example, if they're trying in case and they see they're losing, they can't be like, like, oh, mistrial, they're granted a mistrial. They get a due over. That would be, you can make the argument. That's not fair. That's double jeopardy, right? So it seems he's making the argument because the defense strenuously objected to a mistrial, that they didn't want it,

they didn't agree to it. It's not fair. She's being retried improperly. I don't know if that's going to be successful. But he also indicated if that doesn't work, he is hoping that Tim Cruz, the Plymouth County District Attorney, is going to reduce the charges to second-degree. murder and the reason that is significant, even though that carries potentially up to life in prison, it would allow the case to go to a judge, not a jury, under Massachusetts law.

Perhaps the defense would believe it would be more advantageous to try this in front of a judge rather than a jury. But I don't know, Sierra, I don't know if the prosecution is going to abandon first-degree murder when they presented a case that they believe that Lindsay Clancy deliberately killed her children, that she premeditated on, that she had her husband, Patrick leave the home, that this was bringing the children down. It was three separate acts of strangulation, that they believe the psychosis was only a convenient psychosis at a specific period of time. They were very adamant about that. I don't know if they're going to abandon that. I don't think that they are. I mean, this is speculation again. I don't know what's going on in the

conversations between Tim Cruz and whoever else in the DA's office. But they were steadfast throughout this whole thing that this was premeditated. Lindsay, Clancy specifically wanted Patrick out of the house. She wanted to murder her kids. This was cold. This was calculated premeditation. And at the very end, neither of the prosecutors who presented this case spoke, but Tim Cruz did. And he said, this is about justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan. So for them, if they, let's say, wanted to move forward with second degree murder, does that kind of negate everything they already said so far? Because they said the reason we brought these charges is because we want to justice.

Well, second degree, it's still intentional murder. It's the lack of premeditation. So they could still do it. But I feel like they talked so much about the premeditation in it all. Because they were like, look at the Apple Maps. Look at the way that she was Googling. She specifically wanted him out of the house. So how would that then change their case if it was second degree?

I will say, though, we did ask Kevin Reddington about a possible bench trial. And he said just that, Jesse. First-degree murder, we can't do a bench trial. It had to be jury. But I wonder, because there's so much talk about reasonable doubt, would it be in his best interest if speculation, this comes a second-degree charge, would a bench trial be the way to go? You mean, the idea as a judge is maybe more familiar, comfortable on the idea of insanity, lack of criminal responsibility, what the legal threshold is, evaluates the experts differently. But, you know, look, I think the prosecution would still present their case in a similar way,

it was second degree because they'd have to show it was cruel and atrocious, right? One of the, I think, I believe those were the elements, or maybe paraphrasing some of the elements of second-degree murder. I think they were presented in the same kind of way. What I did think was interesting also, before we wrap things up from juror Darjeet, talked about Patrick Clancy. And he was asked about, you know, because there are these theories out there. You and I both know. There's the conspiracy theories out there. Patrick Clancy killed the children, that he was somehow responsible.

for it. And I think that is really, really dangerous rhetoric. I think that is a really big problem. And he said, this juror, which I think is really important, listen to that 911 phone calls. It hasn't been released. But if you did hear it, called it frightening, said he's never heard a scream like that, that it was horrifying. And he doesn't believe the conspiracy theory. And he says, I think if everyone heard that 911 call, they would change their mind. I thought that was a really important moment in his interview for a lot of people to hear. I absolutely agree with you because this is kind of what I've been saying from this start. I personally didn't even hear the 911 call. I just spoke to reporters who heard it or our photographer, Rich, who was there in the courtroom.

And I made a video about this yesterday. It went crazy. So many comments, people on both sides talking about all of this. And I tend to agree with what Darjey said. Again, I didn't hear it. But based on the descriptions I've heard of this 911 call. People, not even being hyperbolic, they've said, it sounds like a piece of his soul was dying. It is the saddest, most harrowing, most disturbing call of all time. And so if the world had heard this call, there wouldn't be all these conspiracy theories about Patrick Clancy. And I tend to agree with it. I mean, I think people are loving this. They're being armchair sleuths. They're looking at the timeline and timestamps. And, oh, did Patrick change his shoes? Whatever it may be. I agree with you. That's so dangerous.

to talk about. I mean, this is a man who is a victim here who found his three kids. And so if the world heard that 911 call, I think things would be different right now in terms of the discussion around Patrick. Sierra Gillespie, thank you so much for coming on to talk about this. I mean, my gosh, you know, these jurors speaking out provide a different window. It just still becomes a question, what exactly happened? Who do you believe? I'll be shocked if that loan holdout juror speaks. But if that juror speaks, I would definitely want to talk about it here. We'd love to have you back on to talk about it. So we shall see, but you are fantastic. I hope everybody can see your amazing reporting, your work on scandal. Thank you so much for coming on. Thank you, Jesse. I'll come on anytime.

And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.