The jury that deadlocked in the Lindsay Clancy case is speaking out. Jurors say the room was more divided than the public knew.

Clancy is a Massachusetts mother charged with strangling her three young children in 2023. The children were Cora, age 5, Dawson, age 3, and baby Callan, just 8 months old. Prosecutors say she used exercise bands. The defense argued she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and was not mentally responsible.

A mistrial was declared Friday after the jury split 11 to 1. One male juror held out and would not change his vote.

Now a juror called Juror No. 5 is speaking. She told Boston station WBZ-TV that she herself started out leaning toward a guilty verdict.

"And maybe I still believe that in a certain way," she said. "I think that this is a woman who was not mentally healthy."

She also said the holdout was not alone at first. Other jurors had the same doubts he did.

"The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side," she told WBZ-TV. She added that she would defend the holdout to a degree.

She described strong personalities clashing in the room. In the end, she said, jurors simply could not move past their own convictions.

Three other jurors, including the foreperson, spoke with NBC 10 Boston on Tuesday. They accused the holdout of admitting he had reasonable doubt. But they say he refused to change his vote anyway. They called him "arrogant" and said he ignored input from nurses serving on the jury.

The foreperson said she plans to attend a potential retrial in person to support Clancy's defense.

The holdout juror has not spoken publicly. Judge William Sullivan sealed the jury list to protect jurors' privacy and safety.

Jurors sent the judge several deadlock notes over a full week of deliberations. Sullivan denied a request to remove the holdout. He then declared the mistrial Friday afternoon.

Clancy's case now moves toward a possible retrial. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

If a second trial happens, the central question remains the same. Was Clancy mentally capable of knowing what she was doing? Follow this case closely. The outcome could shape how courts treat mental health defenses for years to come.