Lindsay Clancy jurors felt that prosecutors in her triple-murder trial lacked “compassion” and argued that the state even helped prove she was a caring mom who “snapped” when she killed her three young children.

Three jurors, including the foreperson, from Clancy’s high-profile case explained in an interview with NBC10 Boston that evidence and witnesses throughout the grueling 7-week trial “proved” that Clancy loved her kids.

“We weren’t trying to figure out if she murdered the children. She did. And she’s admitting that. We’re trying to figure out did she know right from wrong at that time,” foreperson Roni Carlson said.

“With everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from her journals to her mother in law, everything proved that she loved her children. So she had to have snapped and not known what she was doing,” the foreperson told the outlet

“To me, that was proof that she didn’t know what she was doing,” Carlson, a former fifth grade teacher, added.

“There wasn’t one person on either side that could say anything bad about her. Even the prosecution really couldn’t point to anything,” Juror Paula Devlin said.

Devlin said the prosecution tried to highlight a Facebook post Clancy made asking questions about parenting her 2-year-old Dawson, but in her opinion: “That proved to me that she was a better mother, not a bad mother.”

One of the jurors told the outlet the “prosecution didn’t show enough compassion” toward Clancy, who claims she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was overprescribed a cocktail of psychiatric meds before strangling her kids.

“I honestly think the prosecutor did themselves more damage than good by just not thinking about Lindsay, I mean, the whole picture,” Devlin said, referencing Clancy’s postpartum depression, cocktail of medicine and her doctors not communicating with each other.

“I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” Kellie Farina said of the prosecution’s case.

“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother. I mean…you’re presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody’s presenting, for the prosecution, a woman and a mother of three children.”

“I found them to be biased right out of the gate. I found them to also be unprofessional and just without a heart,” Farina, who works as a chef at a senior center, observed.

“From statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now. Which I guess is expected of a prosecution, but I thought it was very cold,” she said.

Meanwhile, the trio said they found Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, to be “entertaining,” “arrogant,” “compassionate” and “funny.”

“His compassion for Lindsay was amazing,” one of the women said.

In fact, the jurors told the outlet they were so impressed that if they needed representation, they would hire Reddington.

Reddington asked the jury to find the 36-year-old former nurse not criminally responsible on the grounds she was in the throes of severe postpartum psychosis and heard a voice commanding her to strangle her three kids.

But the prosecution claimed she carefully planned the killings and made up hearing the voice and experiencing a psychotic break to avoid criminal culpability.

The frantic 911 call made by Clancy’s husband, Patrick, after Clancy’s suicide attempt was played during the trial and throughout deliberations.

To the jury, “it was the most horrific thing,” Farina said.

“And when we heard it again in the jury room, we were crying again. We were just like, ‘oh my God.’ The desperation, the despair in his voice was again, it’s something that will stick with me,” Farina said of hearing Patrick’s call.

“And I felt that it was genuine. It was absolutely genuine. There’s no doubt about that.”

“There were jurors that had to put in their ear pods and just could not hear it again,” Carlson added. They had to turn up their music and put it in because it just, it was too much. Once was enough.”

The three female jurors also detailed just how close the 12-person panel was to finding the killer mom not guilty by reason of insanity until one male holdout juror blocked the verdict.

“He admitted he had reasonable doubt and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited,” the foreperson said.

“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.”

Ronnie told NBC10 that managing the days-long deliberations was harder than dealing with her fifth grade students.

The jurors called the holdout “arrogant” for refusing to interact with the other members — some of whom were nurses — and for refusing to consider their takes on the evidence in the case.

“He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said,” Devlin, a defense contractor, claimed.

Farina said, “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 jurors explained the panel wasn’t split 11 to 1 from the start of the deliberations but ultimately felt they had failed after remaining deadlocked several times.

Clancy was on trial for strangling her three children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8-months at her Duxbury, Massachusetts home in January 2024.

Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial Friday after the jurors sent out its third note that they were deadlocked after over 38 hours of deliberation across seven days.

Sources: NY Post