Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/09/2026 5:46:00 PM PDT by Red Badger
A fifth juror is speaking out on the Lindsay Clancy case and he is giving even more color to the jury deliberations that produced the stunning mistrial.
After RedState's Bob Hoge gave an excellent breakdown on the fourth juror coming forward, this provides further context for what really looked like a coordinated effort to badger the holdout into changing his mind.
Nick Dargie is now the fifth juror to publicly discuss the explosive deliberations following last week's mistrial. Dargie was one of the two male jurors who joined all nine women in voting to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
ABC News reported that Dargie was “devastated” when the jury failed to reach a verdict that would have acquitted Clancy.
Dargie also sharply criticized the third male juror — the lone holdout — claiming he repeatedly failed to explain what evidence supported his position.
“There was — there was several times would ask him to show us, like, evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying,” Dargie told ABC News. “And — and he couldn’t.”
“There wasn’t a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was,” he added.
Dargie said merely disagreeing with the other jurors would not have been the problem.
“Otherwise, like, there’s nothing wrong with somebody having a complete opposite opinion,” he said. “Like, that’s — you know, that would be a hung jury. That — like, that is our justice system.”
ABC News correspondent Aaron Katersky reported that Dargie said the holdout “never provided an explanation” for why he believed Clancy should be found criminally responsible for murdering her children.
Dargie also told ABC that he believes he and the other jurors will remain friends after enduring the grueling trial — with one notable exception: the holdout.
He said “no one should have to hear the evidence that they heard” ever again.
Dargie's comments follow interviews with three female jurors, including foreperson Roni Carlson, who were openly critical of the holdout.
Carlson made perhaps the most striking remark when discussing his refusal to change his vote.
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” she said.
Juror No. 5, who remained anonymous in an interview with WBZ-TV, said the holdout was hardly the only person who entered deliberations with a strong opinion.
“The majority of people, it doesn't matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and their belief from the beginning,” she said.
“The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side,” she continued. “So, I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense. There were some big personalities in that room.”
Let's just point out here the reason why we're not hearing from the male holdout juror. It's because he is likely in hiding in grave fear of being doxxed and subjected to the wrath of the Clancy supporter army.
So, these jurors can claim virtually anything they want to disparage this holdout juror, and we're likely not going to hear any response from him.
Just like we're never going to hear from Lindsay Clancy's children, ever again.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The children and grandchildren of the ones that voted not guilty should be worried about their lives
*** So, these jurors can claim virtually anything they want to disparage this holdout juror, and we’re likely not going to hear any response from him.***
But he WILL be doxxed, very soon.
What really bothers me is that all the others sold their souls just to keep peace, or to not be bullied anymore. What kind of anatomy do the other 2 men have? They acted like girls. Cowardly little girls.
I guess 3 dead babies, methodically strangled and her confession, was not enough evidence.
FULC and your 11 friends on the jury!
The fifth juror is missing his brain and his nuts.
Well, except for three violently strangled children, and a female that claimed she did the killing......that involved a plan.
Except for that....
Are these people retarded?
Clancy does not deny killing her children.
The fact that she killed them is fairly well established.
She is pleading innocent on basis of an affirmative defense, that she was suffering from a mental condition.
The ONLY REASONABLE DOUBT is to her actually having a metal condition, not her killing the children!
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this way of argumenting?
These jurors define “AWFL”.
The jurors knew that going in and 11 of them were ready to excuse her actions on a lie........
The jurors knew that going in and 11 of them were ready to excuse her actions on a lie........
Let’s bring in Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once told a Congressional witness that she is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. Same premise here. The juror it seems based his decision on the facts. Game over
Let’s bring in Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once told a Congressional witness that she is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. Same premise here. The juror it seems based his decision on the facts. Game over
Let’s bring in Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once told a Congressional witness that she is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts. Same premise here. The juror it seems based his decision on the facts. Game over
I wonder if they'll have annual reunions to celebrate their jury bonding-experience?
No worries from the holdout. He doesn’t mind not being invited to their soirées.
So... Three dead children isn't enough 'evidence' for you? What kind of a lunatic are you?
The big problem is that in (almost?) every other state, the burden is on the defense to prove that their client was unable to tell right from wrong due to mental incapacity. In Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was able to make this determination. It seems that the defense attorney convinced 11 of the jurors that the state did not make its case beyond the reasonable doubt. It is disgusting.
Massachusetts should change their law to conform to the rest of the country, but since they are so evil as to make it legal to have an abortion until the moment of birth, I doubt that they will.
“What really bothers me is that all the others sold their souls just to keep peace, or to not be bullied anymore. What kind of anatomy do the other 2 men have? They acted like girls. Cowardly little girls.”
Prosecutors didn’t want to get in front of this train either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.