Lindsay Clancy juror speaks out
True crime · Heat 1.0 / 10 · 3 shows · 35m airtime
In a post-verdict interview aired September 10, a Lindsay Clancy juror said she may still believe Clancy is guilty and that the jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity so she could get treatment she would not receive behind bars. A fourth juror has since said she originally felt Clancy was guilty and criminally responsible, and the discussion has turned to whether jurors improperly weighed sentencing during the guilt-innocence phase. Reporting has also established that Clancy sought help at nine places, each of which sent her away with more medication or higher doses, and that a person in a psychiatric facility can petition to get out within a year. The defense plans to approach the prosecution about a…
How 3 podcasts covered it
- Law&Crime Sidebar, 2026-09-04 (19:28 to 20:54)
Presses a juror on reconciling planning with insanity
Weber presses Tympanick on how eleven jurors reconciled the planning evidence - the lured husband, the distance research - with an insanity vote. Tympanick's answer stays inside the juror-treatment rationale already on the record. - Law&Crime Sidebar, 2026-09-04 (20:54 to 22:42)
Argues the prosecution never showed knowledge
Tympanick argues the prosecution never put a single fact on the record showing Clancy knew right from wrong, and calls the defense's pill-bottle display effective theater. Pure post-verdict analysis of the criminal-responsibility fight already on the record. - Law&Crime Sidebar, 2026-09-04 (22:42 to 24:42)
Explains insanity acquittal and civil commitment
Tympanick walks through the mechanics of an insanity acquittal in Massachusetts: civil commitment at Bridgewater for 60 days, then intermittent reviews, with Andrea Yates as the yardstick for how long release can take. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (0:01 to 1:14)
Previews the defense targeting the holdout
Opens with a clip of a Lindsay Clancy juror saying she may still believe Clancy is guilty and that the insanity finding was needed for treatment, then previews defense attorney Kevin Reddington targeting the holdout juror. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (1:14 to 3:49)
Reacts to a fourth juror speaking
Reacts to a fourth juror speaking out, who said she originally felt Clancy was guilty and criminally responsible and may still believe it. The panel reads the statements as jury nullification; Borghardt argues jurors have no incentive to be honest after deliberating.
New angle: A fourth juror has spoken out, saying she originally felt Clancy was guilty and criminally responsible. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (3:49 to 5:31)
Calls the juror's reasoning nullification
Plays the juror's own words that the only way to get justice was to get Clancy help she would not receive in prison, and argues it amounts to jury nullification. The legal framing is new; the juror's statement itself is already on the record. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (5:31 to 7:10)
Attacks the jurors' reasoning on release
Psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall attacks the jurors' reasoning, arguing they ignored Clancy's danger to the community and that a psychiatric-facility patient can petition for release within a year.
New angle: A person in a psychiatric facility can petition to get out within a year. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (7:04 to 8:13)
Recaps the juror statement and the backlash
Recaps the juror's statement about getting Clancy help and argues the system is ruined, then says the defense has put a target on the holdout juror's back. Stays inside the week's juror-speaks-out coverage. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (15:57 to 18:05)
Reads the sociopath search as self-directed
The psychoanalyst reads Clancy's 'can you treat a sociopath' search as possibly self-directed and argues psychosis and homicidal intent can coexist, pushing back on the juror interviews that never addressed intent.
New angle: Lindsay Clancy searched 'can you treat a sociopath,' which Marshall says may have referred to herself. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (18:05 to 21:00)
Plays the juror and flags a deal approach
Plays a juror saying the panel knew Clancy murdered the children but concluded she must have snapped because everyone said she loved them. Grace and Borghardt attack the reasoning - 'snap' is not a legal defense - and note the defense is now approaching the prosecution to work a deal.
New angle: The defense is planning to approach the prosecution to work a deal. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (21:00 to 22:14)
Argues the jurors overstepped into nullification
Nancy Grace argues the jurors had the right to vote their conscience but not to nullify, and says their statements reveal deliberations that were constitutionally wrong. A reaction to the juror interviews already on the record, with no new fact about the case. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (28:11 to 31:55)
Walks through the planning evidence jurors ignored
Nancy Grace walks through the planning evidence the jurors are said to have ignored - the Apple Maps check on her husband's absence, the Miralax errand, the CVS call - and Marshall argues command hallucinations don't produce methodical planning over hours or days. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-10 (31:58 to 33:49)
Speculates on a possible plea deal
One minute on the defense's plan to approach the prosecution for a deal, with Borghardt speculating on what each side would want. The deal talk is already on the record from the juror-speaks-out coverage. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-09-26 (6:59 to 7:53)
Plays the juror calling the case a turning point
Plays a clip of a Clancy juror saying the case was a turning point that could make things better for other women and families, and argues the juror admitted the verdict was not based on the merits.
New angle: A Clancy juror said the case could make things better for other women and families in the future. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-10-01 (4:02 to 5:19)
Lays out the insanity standard
Dr. Bethany Marshall lays out the insanity standard and the panel dates Clancy's first account of the male voice to within 24 hours of the killings, via a call to her husband and statements to the hospital chaplain. - Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, 2026-10-01 (5:19 to 7:32)
Recaps the hospital voice statements
Recaps Clancy's hospital statements about a male voice and the defense's Rule 25 turn, with a guest arguing Massachusetts is one of three states where the defense need not admit the crime. Stays inside the juror-speaks-out and retrial-hearing threads. - Defense Diaries, 2026-10-03 (56:35 to 1:02:04)
Details the civil case and treatment failures
Scapicchio turns to the civil case filed on Clancy's behalf, detailing the treatment failures: nine places sought help, each sending her away with more medication, and a McLean stay that ended with a website instead of a detox baseline.
New angle: Clancy sought help at nine places; each sent her away with more medication or higher doses.