Juror claims to have “many proofs” that Lindsay Clancy killed her children

O the only juror who opposed Lindsay Clancy's acquittal, the American mother accused of killing the three minor children in the United States, said that she thought of "many evidence" when she positioned herself against the remaining 11 jurors and argued that the woman acted "methodically" in the "execution" of children. 

“ I had plenty of evidence to support my position,” said Michael Péguy Desronvil in his first interview after the trial, broadcast by Fox News on Wednesday. “But out of respect for the other jurors and the judicial system, I will put the matter aside for now, until the process goes ahead.”.

Lindsay Clancy was being tried for the death of five-year-old daughter Cora, three-year-old son Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. Of the 12 jurors, Desronvil alone considered that it should be criminally held accountable, while the others argued that it should be considered immutable. 

Desronvil explained that he also has a daughter of five and, “so seeing these three children is emotionally very difficult.”.

“ You can see their innocence, their genuine joy. It is difficult to accept that all this has been taken away from them”, lamented.

EXCLUSIVE: “I had a lot of evidence to back up my claim.” For the first time, the lone holdout swear in the Lindsay Clancy trial, Michael Desronvil, is speaking out about the tense deliberations in the high profile case, reviewing to @kayleighmcenany that he had no reasonable doubt about his position. After 38 hours of deliberations, Desronvil found himself at odds with 11 other interests who believed Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity. Now, in an exclusive interview, he opens up about the tension inside the jury room and why he’s keeping some of his evidence to himself. Kayleigh’s full interview airs tower on @foxandfriends at 8am ET. == sync, corrected by elderman == @elder man

— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 14, 2026

The man also explained that the call of Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s then husband, to the emergency services had “marked him deeply.” The contents of the call were released to the press, but reproduction was done only during the trial.

“ Hear the pain in his voice, hear the despair in that excerpt... It was a surreal experience”, he said. 

Remember the case that moved the United States (and the world)

The crime occurred on January 24, 2023, in Duxbury, Massachusetts, when Lindsay Clancy, then 32, took advantage of the moment when her husband, Patrick Clancy, left home at his request to fetch dinner and medication for her eldest daughter.

During the 55 minutes her husband was away, Lindsay strangled her three children in the housing basement. Then he slit his wrists and neck and jumped off the second floor in an attempt to put an end to his life. 

The two older children died on their own day, while the younger one ended up dying days later in the hospital. Lindsay survived the fall, but suffered severe spinal injuries that left her paraplegic.

The woman began to be tried in August and the prosecution intended that she be criminally charged and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole, maintaining that it was a “deliberate and planned crime”. 

The prosecutors accused the woman of having calculated the time required for her husband to leave home and to have researched, in the previous weeks and days, “suicide methods”, “symptoms of psychosis” and “treatment for sociopaths”. In addition, they argue that the window jump was an attempt to stage a suicide to escape responsibility.

The defense, in turn, argued that Lindsay Clancy cannot be held criminally responsible for a serious mental pathology. 

His lawyer, Kevin Reddington, claims that his wife suffered from postpartum psychosis and undiagnosed bipolar disorder.

In early September, U.S. justice annulled the trial after the jurors had not reached an agreement on the verdict.

“I will declare the jury blocked and declare the trial void,” said Judge William Sullivan, in a case that triggered an intense debate on the mental health of mothers, particularly in relation to postpartum, in the United States.

To reach a verdict, the 12 jurors needed unanimity, but the jury was apparently divided among 11 jurors in favor of acquittal based on Lindsay Clancy's lack of criminal responsibility and one against this verdict, according to the state of the deliberations that were known through exchanges between the judge, the defense and the prosecution.

The conclusion of a “blocked jury” occurs when the judge has to note that, after several days of deliberations, the jurors cannot reach an agreement. In this case, the trial is cancelled and can be held later, with a new jury.

Earlier this month, a judge of the Superior Court of Plymouth rejected the request for absolution by Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, arguing the evidence “was sufficient to convince any rational juror [...] of the criminal responsibility of the defendant”.