Members of the jury in the Lindsay Clancy case describe exactly what happened: “She’s not guilty...”

The foreperson of the jury in the controversial triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy revealed that the panel came very close to finding her not guilty by reason of insanity , but one juror refused to support that decision, preventing a unanimous verdict.

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched the video of the interview,” one female juror told NBC 10 Boston in an interview.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial last Friday after the jury sent a third note stating that they remained unable to reach a decision.

“There were three forms I had to fill out and I started filling them out, I wrote my signature on each one but then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’”

The three women interviewed were identified as Paula , a former government contractor; Kelly , a chef in Plymouth; and Ronnie , the jury foreperson and a retired fifth-grade special education teacher.

The jurors said the member who opposed the verdict was “arrogant” for refusing to engage with the rest of the panel and for not considering their arguments regarding the evidence presented during the trial.

“He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said,” one of the women claimed.

Another juror explained that, during the lengthy deliberations, members of the panel walked around the room out of frustration.

“Every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room because you just couldn’t sit anymore. And we would all go to the cart with the exhibits. He, I think, got up to the cart once very briefly and went back to his seat.”

“He would not interact with us and try to understand,” she continued. “We read to him, on numerous occasions, the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge [William] Sullivan’s instruction.”

“But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” she explained.

The women also felt that prosecutors did not show enough compassion toward Clancy, who was described during the trial as a mother suffering from severe insomnia, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and thoughts of harming her childre n in the months leading up to the killings.

“I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” one juror said.

“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother … I found it to be biased.”

The foreperson said all the witnesses and evidence “proved that she loved her children … so she had to have snapped.”

The jury, made up of nine women and three men , deliberated for approximately 38 hours over seven days before reaching an impasse. The members informed the judge they could not reach an agreement on Tuesday, repeated that warning on Wednesday, and finally did so again on Friday, when Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Clancy’s defense team asked the jury to find her not criminally responsible, arguing that she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and heard a voice commanding her to strangle her three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months, on Jan. 24, 2023.

Prosecutors, however, argued that Clancy carefully planned the killings and fabricated the story about hearing a voice and experiencing a psychotic episode in order to avoid criminal responsibility.

The case sparked a major debate in the United States over maternal mental health, postpartum psychosis, and the medical care provided to new mothers.

During the trial, Reddington argued that Clancy received inadequate care from a psychiatrist and other specialists, who allegedly failed to properly diagnose her condition and prescribed her 13 powerful psychiatric medications in the four months leading up to the killings.