Harsh Lindsay Clancy prosecutors helped prove she was a good mom who snapped, jurors say

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.“With everybody saying she loved her children so much and everything proved she loved her children, from our journals to, her mother in law, everything proved that she loved her children.

So she had to have snapped,” the foreperson told the outlet.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 just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh,” she said of the prosecution’s case.“The fact that they had no character witnesses in regards to Lindsay being a bad mother … I found it to be biased.”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 three female jurors also detailed just how close the 12-person panel was to finding the killer mom not guilty by...