The fallout of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial continues after several jurors ran to the media to blab about the one holdout juror, whose refusal to acquit Clancy led to a mistrial being declared. Their blabbing also led to the doxxing of the holdout over the weekend and, now, the spotlight is glaring down on the media's role in unsealing his identity.
Clancy, of course, was on trial for killing her three young children in January 2023, something both she and her lawyer admitted she did. They claimed, however, that she was in the midst of a psychotic episode and, therefore, was not guilty for her actions. This lone juror apparently didn't buy that excuse and stood athwart his fellow jurors (two other men and nine women), who wanted to acquit.
A mistrial was declared on a Friday and, by that Monday, several of the female jurors had begun their media tour. They first sat down with NBC10 Boston's Sue O’Connell and unloaded on the holdout, describing his conduct during deliberations and revealing enough details about him that identifying the man became considerably easier.
That's when O'Connell's colleague, Ryan Kath, began digging into the background of the still-anonymous holdout, combing through court records, contacting the man's relatives, and repeatedly attempting to reach him at his home.
Kath's report, published last Friday, dug up a dismissed 2021 domestic-assault charge, a restraining order, and an eviction case, while NBC10 also contacted estranged relatives. The station then questioned whether the holdout should ever have been seated on the jury.
Just one problem: NBC10 did not have his completed juror questionnaire and therefore did not know what he had disclosed during voir dire. Questions abound about the station's behavior: Where did they get this information, and why did they feel this apparent need to publicly punish this juror?
And there's another important question: Did any of this cross the legal line? It turns out that Massachusetts state law makes it a crime to intimidate, harass, or retaliate against a juror because of his participation in a court proceeding.
Looks like the NBC Boston reporter who thought it was a smart idea to dox the lone Black holdout juror may now have a legal problem of his own. Massachusetts law appears to raise serious questions about whether that conduct crossed the line. Maybe researching the statute… pic.twitter.com/9eI1x0N3J2
— Dennis Byron (@MrDennisByron) September 12, 2026
Looks like the NBC Boston reporter who thought it was a smart idea to dox the lone Black holdout juror may now have a legal problem of his own. Massachusetts law appears to raise serious questions about whether that conduct crossed the line. Maybe researching the statute should’ve come before digging into the juror’s personal life. I’d imagine a good civil attorney will be taking a very close look at this.
And then there's the fact that Judge William Sullivan had already taken the step of impounding the jurors' names until September 18, citing the intense media attention around the case and his concerns about juror harassment and safety.
That protection didn't last long at all. On Saturday, a blogger by the name of "Turtleboy" (real name: Aidan Kearney) took things a step further and actually doxxed the man, making public his name and address. In other words, Kearney happily took the baton from NBC10 and ran with it.
The legal consequences for all involved in the outing of the holdout juror remain to be seen, but laws and judicial orders exist for a reason. Anyone who helped turn this man into a public target may soon find themselves answering some uncomfortable questions of their own.