Lindsay Clancy Jury Room’s SHOCKING Secret Revealed

A juror from the Lindsey Clancy trial. has just spoken out for the very first. time, offering brand new insights into. what happened in that deliberation room. From these shocking new accusations. about this holdout juror to Patrick. Clancy's 911 phone call, why jurors lean. toward a not-uilty 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 prosecution's next steps.

in a possible retrial of Lindsey Clancy. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Talk about being inside the jury room. for the Lindsey Clansancy 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've been doing media. interviews, too. And I'm not going to. lie to you, what he just said was. shocking. Shocking. Raises a lot of. questions if you have been following. this case. So, what I want to do is I.

want to get into what he just said, particularly about this lone hold out. 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. Lindseay Clancy was accused of murdering. her three children by strangling them to. death with exercise bands back in their. Massachusetts home on January 24th, 2023. 5-year-old Kora, three-year-old.

Dawson, 8-month-old Ken. The prosecution. claimed that this was a deliberate, premeditated, conscious set of killings, that she was facing firstdegree murder. as the top charge. But we also know that. seconddegree 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 Readington jumped. on. that Lindsay Clancy, yes, she killed. her children, but that she was in the.

middle of postpartum psychosis, citing. over medication, 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 7. 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 to1 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. Readington 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 Lindsey Clancy on what charges, what charge, how they would ultimately. try this case. would 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 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 are. opening up the evidence vault. 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 adree streaming of all. your favorite lawn crime and court TV. shows. And right now, we got a special. offer. You 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 Dargy, sat. down for an interview with ABC's GMA, Good Morning America, just aired this. morning. And he said that this lone hold. out juror allegedly took one of the. exercise bands, 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. Dargy doesn't know for sure, but this apparently happened in the. deliberation room. Dargy 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 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. That would be a hung jury. That is our. justice system. And I mean, Dargy even. claimed that this lone hold out juror. explicitly said, quote, "I don't know if. the prosecution or defense proved their. case." And Dargy claimed that this juror. at times wasn't engaged scrolling on his. phone while people were trying to talk. to him. 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 I'll talk. about that one in a minute. But what was. also interesting is that Dargy said that. when they first began their. deliberations, some jurors were leaning toward finding. Lindseay Clancy guilty. But ultimately, he said he found the prosecution's 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 Readington 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, Readington added, "What I was upset about was after that. lengthy trial and 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 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, Dargy'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 Twi 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 the NBC 10 Boston. And. one told the outlet about this hold out. 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 impass 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 has 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 Fina, uh, told NBC. 10 Boston, quote, Readington brought all. these people in, people that loved her,

her family, her in-laws, even Patrick, Patrick Clansancy was very. compassionate. So, we appreciated the. fact that Readington 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 the 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 her children. so much. Everything proved that she. loved her children so she had to have. snapped. And it's also being reported by. outlets like Fox News that uh Fina was a. Karen Reed supporter. They cited this. post from June 18th, 2025 in a free. Karen Reed Facebook group. This is after. Karen Reed was acquitted. It says, quote, "Over and out page Massachusetts. jury did their rightful duty today. Karen's free." Again, this is allegedly.

from Fina. 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 Zachdoc. So, Zach 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 ZDOC 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 ZDOC 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 Zach Do. Head on over to zdock.com/jesse. to get started. Check that appointment.

off your to-do list. That's. zooccdoc.com/jesse. So, let me bring on somebody who is 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 Dargy today, I was.

thinking like you saw the jurors, you. would have a good insight into what. happened here. So, when you hear juror. Dargy these comments about this hold out. juror allegedly using an exercise ban to. potentially seemingly recreate the act. I don't want you to identify anybody, but do you have an idea about who this. hold out juror was? Did you get the. sense that this person would do. something like this? Because I we 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 Dargy, 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 hold out, 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 looked like he I'm not gonna 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 Readington, 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 hold out. 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 Dargy, 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 hold out. 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 wondering, could. it have been this guy? and and it leads.

to the support from Dargy's claims that. this juror was not engaged that uh. despite he couldn't present evidence in. support of his position. Um, but I got. to tell you, if this is true regarding. the exercise band, are you surprised the. jurors, the jury for person 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 the band to.

on a water bottle rather than the law. and 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 is going to go. But. >> I also don't know how much they wanted. to, you know, rat the juror out, but if. this actually happened, but I was I was. saying, >> you know, if the if to 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 hold out juror. to allegedly take it out and simulate. strangulation around a water bottle. To. your point, Jesse, I am wondering why. the four person 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 juror speaking out um. and saying listen you know I can't put.

all this blame and and I on this blown. hold out 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 I I we. were just talking about a USA Today. opinion piece. where the 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 Readington and um you. know criticizing the prosecution for. apparently not having sympathy for. Lindseay Clancy whereas did they really. follow the law on uh insanity on lack of. criminal responsibility and and so there. does become a question were the jurors. who were about to vote or were planning. on voting not guilty. Were they properly. looking at the evidence in the 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 Dargy 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 sec 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. about? What they really really said? >> Well, and I want to get into this phone. thing that the juror was scrolling. through the phone in a second. We'll put. that to the side. I don't anticipate.

this hold out juror is ever going to. speak. Do you? I mean, this person seems. like persona nonrad that they've it. seems like there's too many people who. are impassioned by this that if that. juror was to identify themselves and 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. 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 hold out that 11 other people. were agreeing essentially to vote for. her to be not guilty by reason of. insanity, he 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 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. So 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 I don't know if the prosecution. would need to step in and file a motion. to to do that. But but I will tell you. um what I do find interesting about this. um there have been people online who. have been defending this juror as well. This juror being the hold out. These are. people who believe that Lindseay Clancy. should have been found guilty. So there. is a split here. Um, 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 the Were they. looking over at this one lone hold out. juror, the person you believe it may be? I mean, did you get that sense uh 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 Voadier. 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, we're 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 um excuse me, this. wasn't right when it was being declared. This was the last time. This was the. Chewy um Chewy 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 he wasn't excited. He. wasn't smiling, but kind of like a kind. of situation. I did see him smile. multiple times though, this specific. juror. And I will say, so Nick Dargy 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 hold out, 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 Dargy that this lone hold out juror. was scrolling through the phone. Doesn't. make sense to me. I 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 uh Instagram uh or. ex 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 I don't know. The.

only thing I could think of is perhaps. we looked at the statute on mass.gov of. that jurors are allowed to have their. phones just not in the deliberation. room. So maybe Dargy 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. Um, let me ask. you about this. Dargy also said that if.

the prosecution were to retry this case. in the way that they did, he believes. nine times out of 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 watched 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. surprising? 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 witnesses. because two of the three Commonwealth. witnesses came forward and said, "Yes, at the time that the children were. strangled, Lindsey Clancy had a mental. disease or defect. This being bipolar. 2." 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 you both sides. had good and bad, but that to me really. stood out. So, I do wonder if this is. retrieded if they would go with the same. route, go the same tactics. Kevin. Readington, 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 uh Readington'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. correctly because um I was talking to. Mark Aragos about it on my NewsNation. show and he said basically that the.

prosecution can't get a doover, right? In a more extreme example, if they're. trying a case and they see they're. losing, they can't be like mistrial, they're granted a mistrial, they get a. doover. That would be you can make the. argument that's not fair. That's double. jeopardy, right? So, they're making it. seems he's making the argument because. the defense uh strenuously objected to a. mistrial that they didn't want it. They. didn't agree to it. It's not fair. It's. it's she's being retrieded 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 seconddegree 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. And 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.

Lindseay Clancy deliberately killed her. children, that she uh 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 Kora. Dawson and Kalen. So for them if they. let's say wanted to move forward with. seconddegree murder does that kind of.

negate everything they already said so. far because they said the reason we. brought these charges is because we. wanted justice. >> Well second degree it's still. intentional murder. It just it's lack of. premeditation. So they could still do. it, but. >> but I feel like they 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. Look at all she specifically. wanted him out of the house." So how. would that then change their case if it. was seconddegree? I will say though, we.

did ask Kevin Readington 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 there's. so much talk about reasonable doubt. Would it be in his best interest if. speculation this comes a seconddegree. charge? Would a bench trial be the way. to go? >> Yeah. I mean, the idea is a judge is. maybe more um familiar, comfortable on. the idea of insanity, lack of criminal. responsibility, what the 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 if. it was second degree because they'd have. to show it was cruel and atrocious, right? one of I think I believe those. were the elements or I'm maybe. paraphrasing some of the elements of. seconddegree murder. Um I think they. were presented in the same kind of way. Um what I did think was interesting also. before we wrap things up from Juror. Dargy 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 that 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. Um. and he said this juror, which I think is. really important. >> Listen to that 911 phone call. 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 theories. 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. the 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 Dargy 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 time timeline and time. stamps 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 uh if that lone hold out juror. speaks, but if that juror speaks, I. would definitely want to talk about it. here. Would love to have you back on to.

talk about it. So, uh we shall see. But. you are fantastic. I hope everybody can. see your amazing reporting, your work on. Scandal. Um thank you so much for coming. on. >> Thank you, Jesse. I'll come on anytime. >> 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 NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through. Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next. time, everybody.