EXCLUSIVE: Lindsay Clancy Attorney Stuns Courtroom By Questioning Who Actually Killed Her Children

Liberty Check

• Defense lawyer now claims prosecution lacks evidence linking mother to the crime scene
• Legal experts say this dramatic shift signals potential third-party culpability defense at retrial
• Holdout juror remains the lone vote for conviction while 11 jurors favored mental illness defense

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney stunned the courtroom Tuesday by suddenly questioning whether prosecutors can even prove she killed her children. Kevin Reddington demanded to know where the evidence is that his client committed the crimes.

Reddington made the explosive argument while asking Judge William Sullivan to enter a not-guilty finding after the jury deadlocked last week.

“Where’s the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence she did this?” Reddington asked the judge.

“I submit to the court there is no evidence she made any statements, as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments,” he continued.

Prosecutors called the defense’s new position “a laughable argument.” But legal observers noted it represents a complete reversal from Reddington’s earlier strategy where he offered to stipulate that Clancy killed her three children.

“For the first time we saw Kevin Reddington say that there’s reasonable doubt as to whether Lindsay Clancy actually killed her children,” said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani. “He’s never said that in the courtroom, outside the courtroom — and in fact at the beginning of the first trial, he offered to stipulate to Lindsay killing her three children.”

The jury deadlocked 11-1 last week after deliberating for roughly a week. Eleven jurors sided with the defense’s claim that Clancy was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis. Only one juror voted to convict.

“This may just be a defense lawyer denying everything, using the kitchen sink approach, hoping one of these arguments would resonate with Judge Sullivan,” Rahmani said. “Or it could be a shift in defense strategy, where maybe instead of arguing insanity or lack of criminal responsibility at the retrial, they put on a third party culpability defense as well, arguing that maybe someone else is the real killer.”

Reddington also raised concerns about gaps in the physical evidence including blood, DNA, timing, and circumstances surrounding Clancy’s suicide attempt that left her paralyzed. He questioned the police investigation that followed her discovery in the backyard.

“He is arguing that [they] did not prove each and every element as required by law,” retired Massachusetts judge Carol Erskine told Fox News Digital. “I understand why people don’t get this, but he had to argue sufficiency of evidence under Rule 25(b)(2) case law.”

“I will say it was a total surprise that his strategy changed from the original 25(b)(2) motion,” Erskine said. “Did not expect it.”

Clancy is due back in court November 2 for another motion hearing. She has pending motions to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds and to open an inquiry into the holdout juror. A new trial has not yet been scheduled, with both sides indicating they need more time to prepare.

Our freedoms depend on staying vigilant.