Reading Time: 3 minutes
The lone holdout juror from the Lindsay Clancy trial is speaking out.
Even before the public learned of the rogue juror’s domestic violence charge, they heard from other jurors.
Where other members of the jury described the guy as being unreasonable and even admitting to doubting Clancy’s guilt, he’s telling another story.
He says that he didn’t actually have “any doubts,” accusing other jurors of cutting him off during deliberations.
The rogue juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial says that he felt certain of her guilt
Michael Péguy Desronvil released a statement to TMZ that attempts to refute his fellow jurors’ recollections.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” he insisted.
(Other jurors have described him as allegedly admitting to having reasonable doubt, with the foreperson even preparing the paperwork with a sense of relief before he pulled the rug out from under her by clarifying that he wouldn’t change his vote.)
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation,” Desronvil claimed, “I kept getting cut off.”
He continued, saying that he was cut off “as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented.”
Earlier this week, Desronvil spoke to Ray Marcel, who told NewsNation that the lone holdout “felt that she was sane by the preparation she did.”
It is possible that the defense’s experts failed to adequately explain what psychosis in any form, let alone postpartum psychosis, actually is.
(But then … the 11 other jurors all seemed to understand that and other facts of the case.)
Famously, the judge declared a mistrial after the jurors were unable to reach a verdict.
At this time, it is unclear if Massachusetts prosecutors will attempt a retrial. Many believe that the initial trial was an attempt to boost the office’s conviction count, and from the POV of anyone who sees that kind of thing as a positive, they kind of blew it.
What is ‘psychosis,’ anyway?
If you’ve been following the tragedy of the Lindsay Clancy case, you’ve probably noticed a dichotomy in public comments online and in person.
The worst people in the world have turned this into a hot button culture war topic, rejecting evidence and expert testimony in the pursuit of vengeance.
Some folks just don’t understand the basic reality behind the case. At best, Michael Péguy Desronvil is one of those people.
Psychosis is a disconnection from reality. This can range from hallucinations to a believe that one most do something — such as go outside naked — with life-or-death stakes. Someone in a psychotic episode might believe that their food is poison, that their mail carrier is plotting against them, or that they are hearing voices.
Postpartum psychosis is not always deadly, but can be especially dangerous because it almost always involves the primary caregiver of small children. Sufferers might eventually believe that they have to end their child’s life in order to “save” them — and, in rare and tragic cases, they follow through.
Right now, the case is in limbo, which sort of sucks for everyone.
One could argue that it’s the best outcome for Clancy. 11 jurors were prepared to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, which would see her confined to an institution. Andrea Yates, at the heart of another famous postpartum psychosis case, is still locked away, decades later.
(“Not guilty” is its own verdict, and not the same as jurors finding that mental defect or disease is the culprit.)
A stronger argument would say that her life is ruined forever. In addition to being disabled after her attempted suicide, Clancy’s children are dead. There’s no coming back from that.
There’s debate online among very reasonable people about whether Desronvil misunderstood the case or just kind of sucks. Others question whether prosecutors are willing to gamble that they’ll somehow get a jury of 12 more Desronvils who either won’t understand the case or will refuse to engage with the evidence.
Get the app — celeb news firstPush alerts the second a story breaks · 4.8★ · Free
Get the App
