Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror IDENTIFIED!

The Lindsay Clancy Holdout juror is identified. The same man who essentially caused the case to be declared a mistrial, and the identity of this juror shocked those of us who knew him from inside the courtroom. This is Scandal, presented by Longcrime. I'm Sierra the last one. Another shocking twist in the case against Lindsay Clancy. The identity of the one holdout juror has now been revealed. And I'll tell you, I did not see this coming. I was there in the courtroom. Iying up the jurors during testimony, closing arguments, and every time they were in the jury box throughout deliberations. And as those deliberations drug on, from one day to two, eventually stretching into the seven-day mark, the feelings from the jurors got more and more frustrated. You could just see it on their faces. They wanted to be done. And for a time, we didn't know what the holdup was. That is, until they indicated a deadlock. Not once or twice, but three times. And that's what ultimately led this case into a mistrial. And the facts of this case are contentious. So a mistrial wasn't out of the realm of possibility. But the shock came when the Clancy Four person alleged one soldier was a holdout. And this person wasn't following the law as it pertains to criminal responsibility. Now, Kevin Raddington let it slip that the identity of this juror was a male. Now, there were nine women on this panel and only three men. So immediately, all eyes from inside the courtroom are on these three men. Now, there was one young man, probably in his late 20s. He always wore a button on shirts. He looks professional. This man has since been identified as Nick Dargy. Just one row above him was an older gentleman. Probably in his 60s, maybe on the cost of retirement, could already be retired. He looked like an everyday guy. Your dad, your grandpa, that kind of man. But what stood out to me about this juror is that I never once saw him taking notes. He didn't follow along on the readout during jury instructions. So when contention around criminal responsibility came up, alarm bells about this man were ringing in my head. And yet, I was wrong. I'll say it right here. I was wrong. The other reporters in the courtroom who agreed saying that this holdout was likely the older gentleman, they were wrong, too. Instead, it was the final male juror, a black man in his threes. And we know this now because one of the jurors, Paula Devlin, spoke out to CBS Mornings today. She didn't say this juror's name, but she did identify him as a black man in his thirties. And I immediately knew who she was talking about because he was the only black person on the jury, including the alternates. And here's my impression of this man. To be completely candid, he was on the far end of the juror box. So I'm seated in the front row. Nick Dargy and this older male juror were, I don't know, three, four feet away from me really close. But the alleged holdout juror was yards away. I don't know, 10, 12 feet, kind of a far distance. And the way he was positioned was such that I couldn't always see his facial expressions. Maybe that's why myself and other reporters were focused on the other male jurors, just because we could see them better, truly because of proximity. We couldn't always see this man. But from what I could tell about this holdout juror, he's in his threes. Very well dressed, he looked like a professional. A few times I saw him smiling and even kind of chit-chatting with the people around him. So my guess was that he was very pleasant overall. I'd also seen reports that during some of the medical testimony, specifically when the discussion of Lindsay's body temperature reaching 82 degrees was discussed, this juror was very engaged. He was taking a lot of notes, nodding along with the expert almost as if to say, "Yeah, I totally get it." That medically makes sense. So just based on that alone, some speculated that this juror is a medical professional or a professor of sorts. But we don't know that for sure, by the way. I mean, Plymouth County, it's not too far from Harvard or MIT. Maybe, could it be possible that this man is a researcher or a professor there? That's just where my mind went. These are just speculations. But I'll also note that during closing arguments, when Kevin Reddington highlighted Lindsay's mental health struggles and suicide attempt, I noticed this juror looking somber. Maybe even sympathetic. To me, that indicated that maybe he's voting for not guilty by reason of insanity. But we now know that's not the case. As I reported, Paula Devlin identified this hold-up jar on CBS Mornings. Here's why she said she voted for not guilty by reason of insanity. I think Dr. Resnick, his testimony about altruistic filicide, 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. And everywhere you looked, there was just love. There was a big sign that said it's a wonderful life. And there wasn't anything that said she wasn't that. And then to hear somebody talking about a real reason why all of the sudden this could happen, that was really impactful. After this Gil King asked, did the jury struggle with that? How she was able to seemingly be so coherent, but at the same time be having a psychotic breakdown. And here's what Paula replied. Yes, yes, and I think that was one of the things that the whole doubter really, that was one of his main points. That she could do this one at a time and then, you know, do all the steps that she did to go commit suicide. Now Paula revealed at first the jurors were split in their decision, but eventually it dwindled down to 10 verses 2. She said, quote, we all worked together. And I don't know if it was to convince him, meaning the hold up jar, to start with. We all worked together to convince ourselves. And once we got to that point where it was 10 to 2, it was really hard. Not, I felt bad for them because they felt attacked. And there's no way to not do that because that's where we were talking. And this is the part of the interview that really stood out to me. Okay, what Paula says was this man expressing doubt. She told Gil King just the way that it happened, like the sequence of how things happened. And then we watched the video of Lindsey's interview and after that, he said he had realized that it wasn't murder in the first degree. That's where we saw his doubt. And this is where the issue of reasonable doubt comes into play. According to Massachusetts statute, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. For everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your mind an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs, based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case. According to the four person in this case, the holdout juror was expressing reasonable doubt. And that was the basis for Kevin Reddington's argument to replace this juror with an alternate and later to put a stay on the mistrial declaration. That of course didn't happen. The mistrial was ruled and now the fate of Lindsey Clancy's future still remains uncertain. What I'm still blown away by though was the bombshell revelation of this holdout juror's identity. And I give you all my thoughts, but I want to talk to someone else who is also inside of that courtroom. It's friend of the show and LA magazine reporter Lauren Conlon, Lauren, welcome back to scandal two times in one week. I can't believe it. I know, Sierra, we just we can't stop talking about this case about what went down in the courtroom and every day we are learning something new about the jurors. It's so crazy because it's been one week and usually we do have a couple of stories that trickle in the following Monday Tuesday, whatever, but it's like every day a new bombshell. Another thing is dropped and we're like, wait, what? So I have to ask you, I've said this publicly. I was very shocked that this guy was the holdout juror. What was your reaction? I am with you. I 100% M shocked. I mean, I'm I'm just laughing a little bit because I texted you first thing this morning and I literally said, Sierra, you're not going to believe this. I literally would have lost my car in my house on a bet if I was a betting woman that this man was the holdout. And I say this, I say this because as a reporter, we are looking at the jury. We are sharing our observations with people who are not in the courtroom. I will share my observations and I did that, but in my head, I'm doing some analyzations, I guess, if you will. And I can get into that later, but I don't I don't say these things out loud. I don't print these things, of course, I'm just sharing observations. So people are aware my observation about the black man on the jury who was the only black man and I, I wasn't about to say that. Of course, I because I mean, it's obviously it's not doxing. We talked about this. People have thrown that word out, but I do feel like if you are the only person on the jury who is black, maybe it would be kind of obvious if someone did see the jurors walking out of the building or whatever. So I think I was very careful not to say that throughout the course of the trial, but just back to him specifically. He laughed at every snarky thing Kevin Reddington said or did. I thought he was a big Kevin Reddington. I don't want to say fan because clearly that's not the right word here because people are throwing the words. as fangirls out when it comes to that. So I'm not trying to say that. I just, he appreciated or seemed to appreciate his loyaring based on his expressions that I observed. And also, the other jurors that we've seen, I think five come out now. Several of the women, they said he was arrogant. And I was not in the deliberation room, of course, was not there, observing him, he didn't seem arrogant. He was leaning forward, he was engaged, he was into it. I mean, I feel like someone who's arrogant would be like, so this is part of my shock. And I think you and I discussed there was one older male who never really took notes. And I was like, oh, maybe he's the arrogant one that thinks he doesn't need to remember anything, but I don't know, you don't have to take notes, you're not required to take notes. But all of these things going on in my head. And so when I put out onto the internet, the lovely place of the internet, so lovely, that I was shocked that this was the juror because he seemed to really appreciate Reddington's loyaring. And he was so engaged and just didn't seem arrogant. The comments I got were very much vitriol towards me. And I don't understand why I'm just giving my objective opinion on why I was surprised. And that turned into like, oh, because he was engaged, that means that he can't form a different opinion. I'm like, what, I don't, I guess people aren't really understanding what my job is. I'm not, I'm not here to give an opinion. I'm here to give my observation just very standard and objective. So yes, I was shocked. And in a two minute, yeah, two minutes speech I just gave, maybe longer, but. - Well, no, I mean, I think people don't necessarily understand what it was like to be in the courtroom. Because everyone wants to know all of these questions about the juror. So we're inferring maybe what they were thinking. We have no idea of knowing what they were thinking or what they said in the deliberation room. The only observations we can make are what they're wearing, what they look like in demographic, their age, how they react to things to your point, kind of laughing at when Reddington snarky on cross or another report I saw was that when they were talking about the expert witness testimony talking about the hypothermia, the 82 degree body temperature. He was vigorously writing notes, he was nodding. And spinons, you're right, the nods too, sorry to interrupt you. I remember his nods, you're so right. I totally forgot until you said that. - And that's why some people are like, oh, you think he works at Harvard or MIT to me? And I'm like, honestly, it's possible because you run into someone on the street in the Boston area, they work at Harvard or MIT, number one. But number two, I felt like his reaction to that was, oh yeah, of course that makes sense. Yeah, okay, the medical stuff adds up. Superhepsy is a background in the medical field, I don't know. And so I think it's really hard for me personally when we're reporting our observations and people get so angry, you said vitriol. People are so upset about what we're saying. Because to me, I mean, okay, let me ask this question. Did he stand out to you? Because the no-node sky stirred out to me, but did this alleged hold-up juror stand out to you? - Okay, so there's, I mean, a couple of things. And by the way, the same people who are so angry at my observations are the same people who are asking for juror reactions. I just wanna kind of put that out there. So I just think you can't win regardless, you know. And not that it's about us at all, but it is just, you know, you want the information, we're trying to give it to you. So just please be kind. He stood out because number one, there were not as many males in the jury. That's just, that's it. It was a very female, heavy jury. And when I went back to saying like, if I was a betting man, I would lose everything because he was a juror that actually was expressive. I mean, you were there. He was an expressive male juror. And maybe I couldn't see from where I was sitting, the other male jurors besides the one that we're speaking about who was on the top row, kind of older and not taking notes, kind of a bigger guy. I just would have, I would have never thought it was him based on his expressions. I just, I wouldn't. So I'm not saying that that meat, like, you know what I mean? So I'm not saying either way that he wasn't following the law. I'm not saying that he was, I'm just observing him in the courtroom. I think that what I just said the latter is a completely different conversation, a completely different story, if you will, because we weren't there. We do know that what is it? Five jurors are all saying the same thing. But then if we say that, we're racist, I feel like. So because he was the only black man on the jury, Sierra. So I mean, that's just fact. It is fact. And again, what is also fact is the five jurors that have come out and basically echoed all the same thing. They are white. So again, it is, it's going to be that the, I don't know, I've already read that the five white jurors are racist and they were white explaining. And I just, I wasn't there. I don't know, but I, I do dread. I dread the internet at this point. I do, sorry. - It's so hard because we weren't in the deliberation room. Everybody has questions and we're the ones task with reporting on it, but we don't know. I mean, all we can do is take all of these jurors who's spoken out what they said and report on it. So based on Paula Devlin, who today came out and said it was the black male juror, that's what we're going with. Because that's how she described him. That's what she said. And I do have to ask you to because obviously, during the courtroom, every single time they came back and they said deadlocked, eventually, a two-year-old Rodriguez charge was read. And I was trying to go back in my memory bank. I couldn't quite remember what this holdout juror, what his reaction was to the deadlocks or the two-year-old Rodriguez charge. Did you clock him at that point? - I didn't, I didn't. He wasn't, he wasn't on, I shouldn't say, he wasn't on my radar as being someone who would be, quote, a holdout or be fighting anyone. I mean, look, the juror that interviewed with Christina Rex from WBZ said several of these jurors thought Lindsey Clancy was criminally responsible. So, I don't know if they were fighting at first, but they definitely, it took them quite a few hours, I would probably say, to get almost everyone on the same page. But, look, I was so wrong about Kelly Farina, one of the three women that Sue O'Connell from NBC 10 interviewed along with Paula. I mean, Kelly, she would come out, and I reported this during deliberation specifically, she would come out and look very angry. She would be rubbing her temples, she'd be rubbing her face and in my brain. Oh, and by the way, I saw her stare at the prosecution several times for anyone that reports on trials a lot of the time, obviously not all, 'cause I'm wrong. The jurors will look in the direction of who they are favoring. I swear to you, I saw Kelly Farina look at Sprig, look at Buckingham several times, she looked angry. I assumed in my brain she was angry, maybe, I don't know, arguing with some younger female jurors about, but I was wrong. - I was wrong. I was wrong, she was the juror that kind of said that, not so great comment in my opinion, not so great, about him the lone juror not being able to get over the fact that Lindsey viciously murdered her children. I would have maybe not said that, that was me. Can't blame a guy for not being able to get over that. Although, if you take a nuanced look at what she was saying, she's not media-trained. She's not, you know, she doesn't do professional interviews. I think the question here obviously wasn't if Lindsey viciously killed her children, which she did, I'm sorry, that is what happened factually. Part of her plea was vicious. - It was vicious. It was awful, the question is if, you know, she morally and legally knew it was wrong and if she was in her right mind. So I know what she was trying to say, it just didn't come off great in my opinion, but again, I could not have been more wrong about her in my brain. So it's so hard because in this case, we do have to judge a book by the cover because when we're sitting in the courtroom, we don't know their names, we don't know their backgrounds, we don't know what they're saying in the deliberation room. So we have to judge them by their actions or their expressions or things like that. That's all that we have here. And because they weren't recorded, we're the ones who are kind of documenting the history of it all. And we talked about the reasonable doubt because that was huge here. And Paula Devlin today kind of talked about this jurors, this hold up jurors' doubt when he was talking about, I don't know if it really was first-degree murder. What did you make of that? - Yeah, I mean, I feel it and this is, sorry, I don't even mean to smile because this is just, it's not funny, it's very serious, but I did say several times I think to my mom throughout this trial, like I, if I was a juror, I'd be like, yeah, I'm out, I quit. I don't wanna do this, I really, I don't wanna do this. his doubt on whether or not it was first-degree murder. I mean, I think by definition in the state of Massachusetts, minus her mental illness, it would be first-degree murder. But then you obviously have this history of, you know, just awful medical cocktails, seeing a million doctors a paper trail of asking for help. And now, undiagnosed, now diagnosed bipolar, I think he was doing mental gymnastics in his brain, which was telling him that, yeah, maybe all these things come into play, but then you see these babies. And you just can't think otherwise, I get it. But your duty as a juror is to follow the law. So again, I don't know what happened. And it's a weird place, Sierra, that we're in. You know, you have OJ, you have Casey Anthony, you have Michael Jackson. These are all people, sorry to say, but I do think they were potentially guilty of their crimes, but there were awful cases presented by the prosecution against them, and in the courtroom, in the court of law, it is not, it's not about, you know, what's true or what's not, it's about what you can prove. And obviously it is about what's true and what's not. So I don't wanna not give that any weight, of course, but you know what I'm trying to say. It's about following the law, it's about the charges, you know, and the law, how the law is instructed by the judge and the way the jury has to follow that based on the evidence they saw. So that's just what I'll say to people. The jury has seen different evidence, and almost more evidence than we, the public has seen. So I understand, it's really hard to look past the fastest, those babies were strangled, and they are not here, it is so hard. But as a juror, you do take that oath where you have to parse through things and look at things from a nuanced perspective as horrible as that may be. - I agree with you, a million percent. I'm so thankful I was not serving on this. I mean, I live in Massachusetts. I'm not in Plymouth County, but I felt so close because I thought I could have been called on a jury like this. I mean, it happened not too far from where I live and to have to go through and follow the law in that way when there's so many emotions attached to it, it's a difficult task for these jars, and I think it's a huge feat that even 11 were able to have a unanimous agreement. I mean, I know it needs to be 12 in order to get whatever the outcome is, that's why there was a mistrial, but that's still a lot. It's seven days of discussion. I mean, again, I don't know what's ahead in this case. We're back in court on September 29th. You're gonna be there in Plymouth County. - I will be there, yes. - Okay, so I am sure we'll have you back on Lauren to talk about whatever the latest bombshell is at the time. We'll talk about that September 29th hearing. Thank you for coming on and letting us pick your brain because your perspective is really interesting. You were in the courtroom and I'm glad to have a had you on today. - Thank you, Sierra, anytime. I'll talk to you soon. - No matter how you feel about this case, it's clear that there's a lot of information to sift through. And now, you can have access to everything Lindsey Clancy. For behind every major scandal is the paper trail that the public rarely gets to see. If you haven't heard yet, you can go beyond the headlines with case files on the Law and Crime+ app. This is where you get direct access to the raw evidence, uncensored body camera recordings, crime scene images, video recordings of interrogations, and so much more. You can analyze the facts and uncover the truth for yourself. Plus, you get ad free streaming of all your favorite law and crime and court TV shows. And right now, we have a special offer with my promo code. It's scandal fall. Get your first three months of law and crime plus for just $2.99 a month. That's 50% off the regular monthly price. And that is where today's episode of scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you wanna see more or connect with me on social media, you can find me on places like Instagram @SierraGalessby. Thanks for watching today's episode of scandal. As always, I'm your host SierraGalessby, and I'll see you next time. (upbeat music)