this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2026
51 points (98.1% liked)

Wild Feed

657 readers
128 users here now

A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.

Tag if needed:

[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.

[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.

[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.

[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.

[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.

[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.

*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.

*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.

Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.

All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.

Sources posted here include:

https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/

https://www.apa.org/

apnews.com/

https://arstechnica.com/

https://www.theatlantic.com/

https://www.bbc.com/

https://www.earth.com/

https://www.theguardian.com/international

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/

https://lithub.com/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/

https://www.newscientist.com/

http://psychologytoday.com/

https://www.thequint.com/

https://www.reuters.com/

https://www.rfi.fr/en/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/

https://time.com/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us

Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.

Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Icytrees@sh.itjust.works
Wren@lemmy.today
Dasus@lemmy.world
velma@sh.itjust.works
51
Lindsay Clancy holdout juror had no doubt she deliberately killed her children (www.bbc.com)
submitted 5 days ago by Wren@lemmy.today to c/wildfeed@sh.itjust.works
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he "didn't have any doubts" that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children.

"Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned it," Michael Desronvil said in a statement to CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

The judge declared a mistrial on 4 September after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly 40 hours of deliberating.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Desronvil said he believed the evidence presented in court showed she had planned the killings.

"I didn't have any doubts," he said in a statement to CBS on Thursday.

"As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented."

He didn't have any doubts, but he had doubts.

Let's see what the other jurors said....

The jury foreperson, a retired fifth-grade teacher, described not being able to reach a verdict as "awful" and an "emotional rollercoaster".

She told NBC that Desronvil had "admitted he had reasonable doubt", but as she started filling out the verdict sheets, he apparently said: "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."

Another juror told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors had been "very firm in their stance" from the start and "the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side".

But they added that because Desronvil would not "follow" his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He's allowed to hold his position for any reason at all, including he doesn't agree with a defense of insanity--if that's what it was. Likely during jury selection they were asked if they held that bias, and possibly he didn't know, or possibly he lied. But, that's all part of our system. It's imperfect as every such system is.

He claims he tried to explain his reasoning but the rest wouldn't listen. That may be the failure point. If they had listened, maybe they could have persuaded him. Or, maybe they did listen at first and rejected his arguments, then wouldn't listen anymore.

We'll never know what happened in the deliberation room, but the system worked as it should. Having sat on two juries in the past, I have some faith in juries to come to a good decision. In this case, the jury failed in a way that can be accommodated. That is, it was a mistrial, so there'll be another trial.

But they added that because Desronvil would not “follow” his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Not if he had reasonable doubt.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Admitting" that in deliberation is not binding in any way.

The only "gotcha" they can pull out is to get him to agree with the verdict. He clearly didn't and did his job admirably.

He did what he thought was right despite immense pressure to just go with the flow.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

No, if he had any doubt at all then he should have voted with the rest of the jurors. That's how the law works. A jury is not a place to take a personal stand on a case.

On top of that, this juror lied about his criminal past in order to be selected for the jury. He should have been disqualified from the get go.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 points 5 days ago (19 children)

There are different threshold of doubt that are allowed in various jurisdictions for various trials. Two terms are "beyond a reasonable boubt" and "the preponderance of evidence". The first accepts that you may still have doubts, having not seen the act with your own eyes and the fallibility of witnesses, the other that the balance tips in one direction or other. I don't know of any legal systems that require no doubt at all in the verdict.

All that said, I'd say that jury nullification indicates that the jury is absolutely the right place to take a personal stand, regardless of what the law says. If you have the right to hear all the evidence to indicate that an unjust law was broken, you should still be able to say, "Not guilty." You do in fact have that right in many places, including America. The fact lawyers try their best take sure it doesn't happen doesn't mean it's illegal. Note that unless everyone agrees, this will also result in a hung jury and a mistrial.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He had no doubt she intentionally planned and strangled her three kids and was aware of what she was doing.

He may have doubted other things, but those didn't matter to him as much as that simple fact.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (6 children)

I trust the other jurors account of him admitting he had reasonable doubt over his retelling since he lied about his criminal history in order to get on the jury. It's even more damning to know that his criminal history includes domestic violence against his partner.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

The only person who can determine if he had any doubt is him. The only person who can determine if his doubt is reasonable is also him. The decision of a juror is not subject to anyone else's opinion.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not to be a dick, but:

I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.

He's literally saying the opposite of "I have doubts" still here, he's saying "I have no doubts but these other people are interupting me like I do have doubts."

Now, that still seems like a dumb fucking thing to say, but he's not contradicting his doubtlessness, he's saying he's being doubted, that "as if" is very important for context.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think that if a juror is pushing different possible theories, they have reasonable doubt.

That and the following statement from another juror:

She told NBC that Desronvil had “admitted he had reasonable doubt”

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

"I'm not sure if she bashed his head in with a hammer, or a lead pipe, or a candlestick, but I am sure she bashed his head in."

This is a person describing three different possible theories, without admitting to reasonable doubt of criminal culpability.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

OH I see what you mean.

Yeah but in this context "reasonable doubt" is a very specific thing and "doubt" is just the concept, so, "he does not doubt that he has a reasonable doubt regarding her innocence" actually, as dumb as it sounds, could possibly be the valid interpretation of his statements.

But regardless, that second statement (from the post I replied to ykwim lol) doesn't mean "I had doubts," it means the literal opposite.

Also he could just be lying anyway, but those two OG statements quoted aren't (at least necessarily) contradictory.

[–] noxypaws@pawb.social 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

kinda wild to me they jurors are talking publicly about their decisions. especially for a high profile case. I get that it's allowed but still seems like something that shouldn't be encouraged

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 5 points 4 days ago

Yeah agreed

[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (7 children)

"I had reasonable doubt, but I don't like how it feels to challenge my own biases and I misunderstood or lied during jury selection, so no, I don't have reasonable doubt."

That's the summary of this man.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

As someone who has served on a jury myself, I have a difficult time criticizing the individual decisions of jurors for cases that I'm not involved in.

Obviously, it's not a vacuum, and being the only holdout isn't a good look... But unless you're sitting there in court every single day, taking notes and deliberating, then your opinion on the choices of individual jurors is completely irrelevant imo.

Criminal court cases are extremely complex, and reading a few news articles about it is not the same as being there. Suggesting that's enough is actually kind of insulting to our justice system.

Even when I'm pretty sure I would disagree had I been in that jury... It's just impossible to know.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world 8 points 5 days ago

This is ultimately a very sad story and proof that the system failed this family over and over.

For those without time to wade through the article:

the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

[–] NathanRanch@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I'm seeing the rightoids talk about this. It doesn't seem like news, anyone care to explain why this is on my feed?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They're using Lindsey Clancy to justify taking away women's rights.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

Feminism has spent the last 150+ years trying to convince society that women can be level-headed, responsible adults instead of the emotional and hysterical forever-children that they were painted as.

This caricature of uncontrolled emotionality and hysteria was the entire reasoning as to why they could have no agency and therefore could accept no responsibility. That they could not be trusted to act with logic, reason, and accountability, and that their female nature nerfed their cognitive abilities so much that they would always require male chaperones and “owners”, just like children.

With Lindsey Clancy, Women just collectively argued for the latter all over again.

I’m a leftist that’s two good shakes away from being a communist, but holy goddamn hell this argument that women are using - that she is not responsible and cannot be held accountable regardless of how clearly and intentionally she meticulously planned the killings - is rolling the argument for women’s rights all the way back, weaponizing it in the most effective possible way, and then handing it wrapped up in a gift bow directly to the political right.

She planned it. She was 100% responsible. The sooner women stop using the “hormones” excuse, the sooner we stop arming the political right.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

All the jurors except for the one guy found reasonable doubt though, not just the women jurors. And the outlier guy really is a piece of work. Clancey will never be free in any event, she's paralyzed and either gonna be in jail or a mental hospital.

Men have mental health issues related to hormones too, that is not by any means something unique to women. I get what you are saying but dudes make the same case for mental incapacity/insanity.

[–] ageedizzle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Finally, a sane take. Thank you

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 4 points 5 days ago

literally anything exists

Conservatives: "is this a culture war?"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oldmanalex@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

what a fucking tragedy.

load more comments
view more: next ›