The attorney representing accused triple murderer Lindsay Clancy has called for an investigation into the juror who didn't go along with the defense theory that the Boston-area mother was mentally incapable of knowing that killing her kids was wrong.

The juror, now identified — thanks to a doxxing campaign by fellow jurors, the media, and defense attorney Kevin Reddington's wife — is accused by other jurors of failing to follow the reasonable doubt standard in jury deliberations. And that's why Reddington has called the juror, Michael Desronvil, a thief for having "robbed" jurors of "seven weeks of their lives for whatever his agenda was." 

He concluded in his tirade to reporters after the mistrial that "I hope that guy can sleep tonight." 

He said more, but you get the picture. As a player marks an opponent, so did the defense attorney to the juror who ruined his win ratio. 

Reddington has been accused of jury intimidation and faces bar complaints over this and other previous courtroom antics.

Recommended
Rioting at French Schools Explodes Nationwide as the Government Is Running Scared Rick Moran West Coast, Messed Coast™ — After Decades, Could This Political Earthquake Happen? Yes, If You Vote. Victoria Taft

But as long as we're normalizing investigations into jurors to mollify the pink mafia outside the courtroom, and in the interest of fairness, I've got a few other jurors to add to the investigation pile.

Take the coven of three who gave NBC Boston a backyard interview following the verdict. 

On a lovely day during the embers of summer, the jury forewoman and two other jurors sat for the interview in which they admitted to a few items that could be construed as jury misconduct or at least unethical conduct. 

See if you don't agree. 

Nurses on the jury panel offered medical opinions about toxicology and other evidence.

"We had the toxicology reports, we could see. The nurses in the room spoke to that. [reporter there were nurses on the jury and she nods]. So they spoke to that specific thing. That was a question that [Desronvil] had. [Shakes head] And he completely disregarded the information that we gave him." 

That's offering medical testimony, which is an explicit no-no in jury instructions. 

An important note: NBC Boston later removed this part of the interview from its extended version of the interview (below). Reporter Benny Johnson saw it, downloaded it, and amplified it. 

Watch: Lindsay Clancy Attorney Makes Stunning Move in Court That Will Make the Pink Lady Caterwaulers Swoon

The trial meant to send a message about mental health for women. 

Their job is to adjudicate a case, to apply the facts to the law, and make a decision, not send a message. 

Several jurors used smartphones in deliberations.

Michael Desronvil was allegedly one of them. One of them wanted the definition of "altruistic filicide."

They were explicitly forbidden to use their own research in jury deliberations.

Reasonable doubt for thee but not for me. 

The trio claimed Michael Desronvil did not apply the rule about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But it turns out their idea of what posed reasonable doubt was a bit off or, obviously, a matter of opinion. 

One juror named Kellie said she was put off by the prosecution promising a way in which the woman who killed her children attempted to jump out of the second-floor window. 

"Yes, it showed huge reasonable doubt. [Prosecutors] started out with one motive or saying that she hung out the window. The things that they were saying was all disproven by professionals and sometimes their own professionals. So that brought huge reasonable doubt to their case." 

She jumped out of the window after committing a triple murder. Is reasonable doubt established by a difference in how an accused murderer jumped out a window? Maybe, but only if you want to see it.

Forgetting it was a murder case

The jurors claimed the holdout juror wasn't "open minded" about the case because "he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children." 

Is it really unreasonable to show up to be a juror in a murder trial and, when evidence is brought showing a triple murder by the accused, be immovable about the fact that she committed murder? But here's the worst. They said Desronvil was "arrogant." 

"Everybody" was not on trial but was found guilty.

Lindsay Clancy wasn't guilty but society was according to a juror who said family "did the best they could," but "with the stigma attached to [mental] health...I think everybody's responsible. I don't know how you point to just one person being responsible."

The "medical system" wasn't on trial, but it was found guilty.

"I believe that Lindsay was wronged by the medical system and I hope this changes things in this country for women and all people, really," Kellie, the juror, said. 

Prosecutors weren't compassionate toward the accused murderer. 

And that caused reasonable doubt?

"I just found it to be harsh, Sue [the reporter]. Very very harsh. So, I found it to be biased right out of the gate. I found them also to be kind of unprofessional and um just without a heart. ...the fact that they had no character witnesses to in regard to Lindsay of being a bad mother. I mean, right out of the gate, it's like you're presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody's presenting for the prosecution a woman and a mother of three children. And for me that right away I was like, okay, where is this going? Right. From statement one, there is no compassion in this courtroom right now, which I guess is is expected of a prosecution, but I thought it was very cold," — Kellie said and other jurors agreed.

Prosecutors will take the note, but let's also hope they explain next time, if there is one, that you don't have to prove someone is a bad mom to prove that she killed her kids. 

More: The Pressure on Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Is About to Go Nuclear

Sooo confusing.

"It was difficult to separate wanting justice for the children from the evidence that we were presented with," said one juror. 

Once again, an accused murderer was on trial. The murder of the children appears to have been less an issue than mental healthcare to the murderer. 

Poisoning the well.

"I think maybe I've contributed to this, but I think it would be really hard to find 12 people that could not be biased." 

A juror who admits that speaking out about the case as much as she does will taint a future jury pool is problematic. You can add that to the fact that none of them wants Clancy to be tried again. 

Discussing own mental issues to provide context to testimony.

"And being that it was, you know, lots of mental health it was a mental health topic. Um, and there were many of us on the jury who have experienced mental health. I mean, everyone knows someone who has the mental health issue and sharing their own personal stories? So, it was pretty intense" – Jury Forewoman

They judged the case based on their own mental illness issues. Question: Are these people experts in the field, and is this testimony and amplification of evidence to sway jurors during deliberations?

She was a good person because: word art. 

One wonders if she'd had wall art with which the coven disagreed, if that would have passed for beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Doxxed: Lindsay Clancy Juror Now Outs Himself — Oh, and There's Something Else You Should Know

They weren't a jury as much as a self-help coven.

Jurors on both sides were decided from the jump, according to one woman who appears to have been an exception to the rule. She believed Clancy was guilty, but later, under pressure from jurors, switched her vote after she was convinced that there was only one way to "help" Clancy. 

“There was not a single moment throughout that presentation of that case that you could say, ‘Oh, yep. 100 percent, I’m certain she did it or that she didn’t do it.’ There’s too much gray area,” she remarked.

Eventually, the juror said that she felt “the only way” to get justice for Clancy’s three children, her ex-husband, and her parents, “was to get her the help that she desperately needed.”

On Tuesday, Kevin Reddington made official his threats to demand that the judge investigate the juror, seize his phone, grab the juror notes, and find out if he used his phone during deliberations. 

He alleges to have used his phone to look up the definition of "altruistic filicide" because he wasn't sure what it meant. It was a claim made by an expert witness that might explain why Clancy systematically killed her kids. Some of the jurors found this testimony convincing. Indeed, though Clancy was never found to have had that mental issue, some of the nine women on the jury thought it sounded good. 

I'm no lawyer, but I can see what I see. And some of what I see might be called juror misconduct. 

Let me know in the comments.