Blog

It had looked like the end of deliberations in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

Eleven of 12 jurors had agreed not to convict Clancy. Then the one holdout “admitted he had reasonable doubt,” the jury’s foreperson, Roni Carlson, said in an interview with television station NBC10 in Boston on Tuesday.

According to the judge’s instructions, if jurors had considered all the evidence but still had reasonable doubt about the charges against Clancy, they had to acquit her.

So Carlson, a retired teacher, started to fill out the three verdict forms, she said in the interview. She got as far as writing her signature on each sheet. But then, Carlson recalled, the holdout juror said, “I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”

In the first public statements by jurors since the monthlong trial, Carlson and two other jurors opened up about the grueling week of deliberations in which the jury of nine women and three men were deadlocked, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.

Clancy has not denied that she strangled her children — Cora, Dawson, and Callan — at their Massachusetts home in 2023. Instead, her trial in Plymouth, Mass., was over whether she should be held criminally responsible for their deaths.

Her lawyer argued that she had suffered from postpartum psychosis when she strangled her children with exercise bands on Jan. 24, 2023. The prosecution disputed the severity of her condition and said Clancy had planned to kill her children before attempting to die by suicide.

The three jurors said in a group interview with the station that they believed the evidence showed that Clancy clearly loved her children and repeatedly sought help for her mental health struggles.

“Everything proved that she loved her children, so she had to have snapped,” Carlson said in the interview.

The juror who disagreed with the other 11 does not yet appear to have been publicly identified or interviewed.

One of the three jurors interviewed, Kellie Farina, a chef for a senior center, told NBC10 Boston that the holdout juror “had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

The third juror interviewed, Paula Devlin, who works for a defense contractor, said the holdout “completely disregarded” information that nurses on the jury provided to help interpret medical reports from the hospital where Clancy stayed after she killed her children.

The jurors said that the testimony and evidence presented at the trial were brutal at times. Farina described the 911 call made by Patrick Clancy, Clancy’s then husband, the night the children were killed as “horrific.”

“When we heard it again in the jury room, we were crying again,” she said.

The jurors were critical of the prosecution, with Farina describing it as “harsh,” compared with the defense’s style, which she described as “compassionate.”

Farina said the prosecution presented a lot of medical experts but no witnesses that said Clancy was a bad mother, a factor that weighed heavily with the three women.

The jurors said that Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, was arrogant, but they also found him compassionate and occasionally entertaining.

The case has deeply divided Americans, with some supporting the prosecution and others — especially women who report negative experiences with the postpartum mental healthcare system — expressing sympathy for Clancy.

Clancy, who was paralyzed from the waist down after her suicide attempt, is being held at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run psychiatric facility.

Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will retry the case.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Iran has signaled that it is willing to escalate its fight with the United States, with senior leaders issuing increasingly sharp warnings in recent days after attacking U.S. warships for the first time.

The country’s leaders are taking a more aggressive approach as Iran faces mounting economic pressure and they worry that their grip on the Strait of Hormuz is slipping. The U.S. blockade is making it nearly impossible for Iran to ship oil, its main money source. And in effect, Iran sees escalation as the primary leverage it has against the United States.

The situation, analysts say, raises the risk that a series of recent clashes could reignite a full-blown war.

On Saturday, Iran said it had attacked two U.S. military vessels with ballistic missiles, prompting U.S. forces to respond by striking three Iranian oil tankers.

A day later, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Iran’s lead negotiator and the speaker of parliament, told lawmakers that the era of “proportionate responses” to U.S. attacks was over. “From now on, any aggression against Iran’s interests and security will be met with a response that is faster, heavier, and more painful,” he said.

Soon after, Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, announced plans to impose a “restricted zone” for shipping in the Persian Gulf that would go beyond the country’s efforts to control the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has largely withstood the heavy military campaign launched by the United States and Israel in February. But the war of attrition in recent months has created an economic threat that is now pushing the government to intensify its rhetoric and attacks.

A U.S. naval blockade has prevented Tehran from exporting much of its oil, the country’s main source of revenue, making a long-standing economic crisis even worse. On Tuesday, the government raised some gasoline prices because of fuel shortages, a move that is expected to further roil a country already struggling with soaring inflation and unemployment, and a rapidly depreciating currency.

At the same time, U.S. naval escorts have enabled a trickle of oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, undercutting Iran’s closure of the waterway, which has caused global oil prices to rise sharply. The number of ships getting through is small, and the effort is extremely costly for the United States, but it has prevented oil prices from rising further and blunted Iran’s ability to impose economic pain on Washington.

“How do you regain the momentum? You escalate,” said Farzan Sabet, an Iran analyst at the Geneva Graduate Institute, a research group. Iran will likely attempt to intensify the military confrontation, he said, while seeking to avoid a return to full-out war. “It’s highly damaging, but at the same time, they hope it raises global oil prices or fully recloses the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

‘Make or break moment’

Senior Iranian officials have said they are open to negotiating a return to the fragile Memorandum of Understanding that halted the war in April and was meant to lead to talks on an Iranian nuclear deal.

But President Donald Trump has said he has no interest in negotiations, preferring to maintain his strategy of attrition and suffocating Iran economically.

Iran’s leadership believes that now may be the best moment to raise the stakes, as the U.S. midterm elections in November approach and an unpopular war could hurt Trump and the Republican Party.

“All signs point to a make or break moment,” said Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran analyst and editor of the regional news website Amwaj.media. “I’m not sure the Iranians are going to wait until after the elections to be attacked if diplomacy fails.”

Iran’s move to strike two U.S. warships with ballistic missiles was a significant escalation, said Hamidreza Azizi, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group.

Iranian forces had previously made no serious effort to target U.S. naval ships and seemed reluctant to conduct attacks that could cause heavy American casualties. “These calculations have obviously changed,” he said.

The U.S. decision to retaliate by striking three Iranian oil tankers — and sinking one of them — was an indication of how seriously Washington took the Iranian attack.

“Both sides are trying to dictate their red lines and trying to push the red lines of the other side as far back as they can,” Azizi said.

It was also a recognition that Iran’s military capabilities have evolved. Before the war started, the United States did not think Iran could target U.S. military bases in the region with precision, he said. But in recent months, Iran has shown it can do so, including with a strike on a U.S. base in Jordan in July that killed two American soldiers.

Iran could become similarly adept at targeting naval fleets, Azizi said.

Iran has also been very public about its efforts to capture and learn from its enemy’s weapons. On Tuesday, Iran’s state news agency IRNA announced that naval forces of the powerful Revolutionary Guard had seized a U.S. submarine drone known as the Dive-LD. Iran has previously managed to reverse-engineer weapons offered to it by its allies or captured from its enemies.

U.S. Central Command said the drone was an older model that had malfunctioned and “neither collected sensitive data nor carried any classified sonar or radar equipment.”

Hours later, a U.S. official said American forces had struck multiple Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for Iranian attempts to strike a U.S. Navy warship for the second time in days. Iranian state media said tankers were hit off the coast of Kharg Island, the hub of the country’s oil industry, and Jask, a port city on Iran’s southern shore.

Rezaei’s announcement of a new “prohibited zone” in the Persian Gulf was another attempt to ratchet up the confrontation.

The security chief offered few details about the plan, but Mohamed Ghaderi, a Tehran-based foreign affairs expert, said it was designed to increase the cost for vessels passing through the strait with a U.S. naval escort and warn them they may not be safe even once they do.

“Compliance with Iran’s new rules can be a condition for safe and consequence-free passage,” he said.

These escalatory moves come amid fresh regional turmoil, with Iran’s Houthi militia allies in Yemen launching attacks that wounded dozens in the south of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, and the kingdom vowing to retaliate. Whether coordinated with Tehran or not, renewed conflict in Yemen would help Iran in its goal of putting more pressure on global energy prices.

Economic crisis

For Iran’s leaders, what they have called a U.S. “economic war” has become a domestic security risk that has prompted them to take a more aggressive stance.

A rising sense of economic despair among Iranians could spark a new wave of anti-government protests. Last December, a currency crisis triggered nationwide demonstrations, which security forces crushed with deadly force.

Iranian officials are anxious that Israel may exploit any discontent to support dissidents or an insurgency, said Hadi Borhani, a professor of Israeli and Middle East studies at the University of Tehran.

He pointed to recent statements by Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said this week that “there is still more to complete. I mean, first and foremost, the toppling of the regime. This regime in Iran — its end is near.”

The Iranian government does not want to wait for Israel to act.

“They believe Iran should change the situation, possibly through a more damaging or aggressive move that can raise regional tension,” Borhani said.

Some Iranian leaders also believe now is a good moment to act because Trump will return to war after the midterms anyway. The president will either feel vindicated by an unexpected electoral victory or feel that he has nothing more to lose by pursuing his own strategy, several of the analysts said.

Sabet, however, expects that worsening global economic conditions will eventually push the Trump administration to ease tensions.

Even though the U.S. naval escorts through the Strait of Hormuz have allowed some oil to move, he said, global crude stockpiles are not being replenished fast enough, and natural gas and other critical oil derivatives are not getting through. Those shortages are likely to inflict more pain on the global economy.

“That is when I see them muddling their way toward some kind of limited or de facto deal,” he said. “Don’t think of it as an MOU plus — think MOU minus.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

The pilots of the Amazon cargo jet that overran a runway at Miami International Airport on Sunday were not fully in control of the aircraft as it touched down and appeared to have temporarily considered aborting the landing, according to a timeline of the final seconds before the deadly crash that federal investigators unveiled late Tuesday.

The sequence of events detailed by National Transportation Safety Board investigators likely cost the pilots hundreds of feet of runway length and crucial seconds in the moments before the plane ran off the runway, striking two vehicles as it exited the airport grounds and crossed a public road, killing five before coming to a stop, according to aviation experts who reviewed the timeline.

“You either land or you go around. You don’t land, attempt to go around, and then get back to landing again, unless there was some mechanical malfunction,” said Steven Arroyo, an aviation expert and retired United Airlines pilot.

“I have never seen anything like this,” he added of the information that NTSB investigators detailed Tuesday night.

The NTSB has yet to release a transcript from the cargo jet’s cockpit voice recorder, a readout of which they are expected to publicize Wednesday. Investigators are also expected to interview the aircraft pilots then, according to Jennifer Homendy, the board chair.

During a news conference late Tuesday night, Chihoon Shin, the lead crash investigator, laid out a timeline of what happened during the last 30 seconds captured by the flight data recorder. Flight data recorders are designed to stop operating when the airplane’s electric power supply is cut off, as would happen during a crash.

The problems with the landing were apparent from the start of that timeline.

At 30 seconds out, according to Shin, the plane’s nose landing gear and its right-side main landing gear touched down. At that point, the plane was traveling at nearly 182 mph — faster than what is considered ideal for such planes, according to experts.

It would take another seven seconds before the pilots applied the brakes, and another four seconds after that before the left-side main landing gear would make contact with the runway, Shin said.

That touchdown sequence was “really bad,” said Michael O’Donnell, an aviation consultant who previously led the Federal Aviation Administration’s aviation and airport safety divisions.

“The nose should not hit first,” he explained. “That is an unstable approach right there, and that really tells me that the go-around should have been executed a lot sooner and they weren’t in total control of the aircraft.”

But perhaps more critical was what the pilots tried to do next. Fifteen seconds before the recording ended — or four seconds after all their landing gear was on the runway — the pilots released the brakes, and appeared to try to increase thrust, in what aviation experts said was a telltale sign of a “delayed decision” to abort the landing.

The plane was moving at 138 mph when the brakes were released, and “throttles increased to values consistent with go-around thrust,” Shin told reporters.

The pilots did not idle the throttles and reapply the brakes until 11 seconds before the recording ended, at which point the aircraft was moving at nearly 135 mph, according to Shin. While the brakes remained engaged for the rest of the recording, he added, the pilots never deployed the airplane’s speed brakes, which are flaps located on the wings, or its thrust reversers, both of which could have helped slow the aircraft further.

“There’s all kinds of red flags with a go-around decision made that late,” O’Donnell said, adding, “If you do the math, that’s a lot of runway that went by while they were doing that.”

Investigators did not detail how close to the end of the runway the plane was at the junctures they identified.

“That’s something we still have to determine,” Homendy told reporters.

But at the ground speeds that NTSB investigators specified, the plane would have been moving down the runway at a pace of about 200 feet per second during those four seconds when the brakes were released.

It is not clear if those roughly 800 feet, and the lost seconds of deceleration, might have allowed the plane to come to a stop before it struck the vehicles, or have made the difference between life and death for the victims. When the recorder stopped, the plane was still moving at nearly 75 mph, according to Shin.

But aviation experts said that the pilots’ apparently erratic and conflicting actions in the moments before the crash were perplexing.

“If you’re going to do a go-around, you absolutely have to commit,” said Pablo Rojas, a lawyer for Podhurst Orseck, a Miami law firm that specializes in aviation accidents, noting that hesitation by the crew cost valuable seconds on the runway.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.