Staff Reports
The man who refused to budge in the Lindsay Clancy jury has finally spoken. Juror Michael P. Desronvil says he stood firm because he “didn’t have any doubts” that the prosecution proved criminal responsibility. His statement and media appearances have turned what was already a tragic, raw case into a messy public fight over jury duty, media mobs and courtroom fairness.
What the holdout juror says
Desronvil issued a statement — carried by national outlets — saying the physical evidence, witness testimony and the prosecution convinced him Lindsay Clancy “knew exactly what she was doing and planned” the killings. CBS News carried his short, blunt line: “I didn’t have any doubts.” His attorney, Edward Paltzik, and a representative said he is in a secure location and warned that online attackers “will be held accountable.” That’s right: the internet is furious, and furious people are not good at facts.
Conflicting accounts from the jury room
Other jurors tell a very different story. Juror Nick Dargie told ABC News the lone holdout once tied an exercise band to an empty bottle and used it to demonstrate the killing — and that Desronvil “failed to point to evidence” supporting his vote. News reports show the jury was reportedly 11–1 in favor of finding a lack of criminal responsibility, but because Desronvil refused to change his vote the judge, Judge William F. Sullivan of Plymouth Superior Court, declared a mistrial. That split raises real questions about whether a single juror should be able to end deliberations when everyone else sees the case one way.
Money, threats, and the public circus
Meanwhile, this story has been fed to the mob. Desronvil has been doxxed and threatened, and fundraising pages sprang up — one GiveSendGo campaign reported to have taken in six‑figure donations before lawyers sorted out which fund was authorized. That’s reprehensible harassment, and any threats should be prosecuted. But let’s also remember reporters found a 2021 domestic‑violence allegation in public records that was dismissed, and courts now want to know whether juror questionnaires or disclosures were complete. A limited inquiry into the juror — the judge could order production of questionnaires, phone records or even sworn testimony — is on the calendar for argument on Nov. 2. The court must balance juror safety with ensuring the integrity of the process.
Why the coming hearings matter
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz hasn’t announced whether he will retry Clancy, and the defense has filed motions asking for dismissal and other relief. If Judge Sullivan allows a narrow inquiry into the holdout, it could change everything: it might justify a retrial, or it could undermine the prosecution if misconduct is shown. Either way, the public spectacle and the social‑media mob shouldn’t be the drivers here. We need sober, careful answers from the courtroom, not Twitter verdicts. Watch the Nov. 2 proceedings closely — because real justice, not theater, should decide whether this case goes forward.
