Lindsay Clancy's lawyer says there's "no evidence" she admitted to killing her kids
In a surprising turn in Lindsay Clancy's first hearing since her mistrial in early September, her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, argued that there was no evidence she killed her kids.
Reddington was arguing a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty, asking the judge to find that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient for a rational jury to find Clancy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal experts have told WBZ that the motion itself is a long-shot attempt to avoid a second trial. Prosecutors have not explicitly stated plans to retry Clancy.
On Tuesday, Reddington argued that prosecutors hadn't met their burden – that Clancy killed her children beyond a reasonable doubt – at trial.
"Where is the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this?" Reddington said. "This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?"
Reddington launched into a list of evidence he said didn't pass muster, including Clancy's body temperature and testimony from her ex-husband, Patrick.
"There's no evidence that she admitted she did this," Reddington said.
Reddington's argument Tuesday appeared to conflict with arguments he made repeatedly before and during the trial. In his opening statement in July, Reddington said Clancy "knows what happened to those kids."
In a pretrial hearing back in June, Reddington said, "She takes responsibility. She, as the kids say, she owns it. She's not running away from anything here. This whole case is an extreme tragedy."
Reddington also offered to stipulate – in writing – that Clancy admits to killing her kids, in an April 2026 motion. In that motion, he had asked the judge to bifurcate the trial or split it in two: one trial for Clancy's guilt and another for her mental state. That request was denied.
Reddington told the judge Tuesday that he was making his required-finding argument in two parts, consistent with his earlier request to bifurcate the trial. First, he argued prosecutors failed to prove that Clancy committed the killings beyond a reasonable doubt. He then argued they also failed to prove that she was criminally responsible for them. "You're put in a conundrum when you have to admit culpability in order to raise a lack of criminal responsibility," he explained to the judge.
Still, Reddington's comments surprised prosecutors, too. "Now for the first time the defendant is arguing that there's no evidence that she did this," prosecutor Shanan Buckingham said in response. "I would suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to information supporting the fact that she did this."
When asked outside of court to clarify whether he's claiming Lindsay Clancy did not kill her kids, Reddington told WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex, "Look, I argued that in the trial, I argued it on a motion for a required finding, it's not new rocket science by any means. It's the fact that [prosecutors] cannot prove a probable cause."
