Clancy Juror Who Voted to Acquit, Criticized Holdout Publicly, Was ‘Super-Fan’ of Another Accused Murderer, Social Media Posts Reveal

Kellie Farina should never have been on the Lindsay Clancy jury.

This isn’t just because she contributed the now-infamous quote about the holdout juror who voted not to acquit Clancy for murdering her three children, meaning the case ended in a mistrial: “He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

This also isn’t just because one of her issues was that the prosecution acted like, say, prosecutors, and didn’t present character witnesses who made Clancy look good. “You’re presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody’s presenting for the prosecution, a woman, a mother of three children,” she said in the same interview.

“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

Lindsay Clancy jurors speak out, express their frustration with the lone holdout. pic.twitter.com/NehHv9qInV

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 8, 2026

This juror is telling you from the prosecution’s opening statement that she was team free Lindsay regardless of any evidence they would produce. pic.twitter.com/HsTxl54EXA

— Lisa Elizabeth (@Lisaelizabeth) September 9, 2026

Mind you, that’s enough to have us believe that Farina is someone who gets her ideas about the justice system and how juries are supposed to decide based on true crime podcasts with titles like “Why the Husband Did It But Was Never Convicted,” “Your Intuition is Always Right,” or “Cozy Miscarriages of Justice for Sleep.”

But that’s just circumstantial evidence that she’d had her common sense rotted by internet sleuthing. Now we have concrete evidence.

According to a report in the New York Post on Wednesday, Farina was deeply involved in the debate over Karen Read, another woman whose murder case became a cause célèbre among the true-crime flibbertigibbet class.

Her online presence in a group called “Free Karen Read,” the outlet said, “suggest that she threw her full weight behind Read during her high-profile trial last year.”

“Over and Out Page. Massachusetts Jury did their rightful duty today. Karen’s free,” she said after a jury acquitted her of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges, among other offenses.

As the story noted, however, Read’s case was a bit more complex, with some amount of doubt as to whether she had committed the crime or was the victim of a police setup.

From the New York Post:

Read, who was accused of mowing O’Keefe down with her SUV after dropping him off at his cop pal’s house following a night of heavy drinking, argued that she was framed by her slain boyfriend’s cop friends for the crime.

After Read’s first trial ended in a hung jury in 2024, she was retried but acquitted of all charges after jurors decided there were too many issues with cops’ investigation in the case.

At the time, Farina also expressed rage against disgraced ex-state trooper Michael Proctor — who served as the lead investigator in O’Keefe’s death before it was revealed in court that he had sent his pals a string of derogatory text messages about Read — writing in one post that he was a “POS.”

The supposed Read superfan also blasted Norfolk County Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who led the commonwealth’s case against Read, as a “freaking joke,” another post shows. 

Look, this is stupid stuff, but perfectly fine if you’re on social media. Tame, in fact, judging by the tenor of most groups. However, it’s also proof that she was someone who was prone to forming biases of how cases were presented in the media and was sympathetic to the defendant to the point of rage.

And then she got selected as a juror in the Clancy trial and, by all indications, took this mindset into the jury room.

Part of the issue in Clancy’s case was that there was no question over whether or not she did it, or whether there was police misconduct — at least not from rational individuals, and not in the courtroom in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Rather, this was a case of whether or not Clancy was in the throes of postpartum psychosis, which she had not been diagnosed with, or whether she was simply suffering from a less severe case of mental illness which still led her to have the “substantial capacity” to appreciate what she had done, concocting the idea of a psychotic break.

That’s a difficult matter. But, to hear Farina talk about it, she basically kept the mentality from the “Free Karen Read” group, finding any reason to dislike the prosecution simply for being the prosecution and disdaining a juror simply because he had “the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

This wasn’t trial by jury, or even trial by media, but trial by podcast. One hopes that when and if Clancy is retried, the prosecution is able to keep bad-faith jurors like Farina off the panel entirely. Justice depends on it.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.