Lindsay Clancy defense lawyer questions if she even actually killed her kids, asks judge ‘Where is the evidence that she did this?’

We are weeks on from the stunning resolution of Lindsay Clancy‘s six-week trial, which ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict, and her fate remains unknown. 11 jurors voted to acquit on the grounds that she was in psychosis at the time of the killings, with one holdout refusing to budge.

Now, as legal debate rages over whether Clancy should face a retrial, her defense attorney has pulled a surprising about-face. It has long been established that Clancy killed her children, with her defense that she wasn’t in control of her actions at the time. Now her defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, is arguing that maybe she didn’t do it after all.

Speaking to the court yesterday, Reddington asked the judge (via NY Post), “Where is the evidence that she did this?” He went on to point out that the forensic evidence like DNA and fingerprints was “woefully flimsy,” that the timeline the prosecutor had presented was “ridiculous,” and that the investigation had been botched by cops. He concluded: “In this case, there was no investigation. They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.”

“This entire case is based on speculation”

It should be underlined that Clancy herself has repeatedly and explicitly described her involvement in her children’s deaths. She says she heard a loud male voice tell her, “This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself.” Then she said she remembers strangling each child and saying, “Go to God, baby.”

But Reddington now says there’s no evidence backing that up, and that Clancy’s ‘memories’ are merely based on what she was told by others when she awoke at the hospital. He argued: This entire case is based on speculation. She was told what happened. She had no memory of what happened. … There’s no evidence that she admitted that she did this.”

There is a reason for arguing this now. Reddington says that the trial not being split into two parts – one to decide if she was guilty of murder and the other to decide if she’s criminally responsible – meant he was unable to mount an insanity defense without admitting she committed the crimes. Now that this isn’t currently being made, he can argue for her innocence.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham described this argument as “laughable”, saying “What we heard over and over from the counsel during the trial were objections when we presented evidence of the actual crimes where he objected, ‘She admits that she did this’… but now he’s saying there’s not enough evidence. … The suggestion that there is not enough evidence, I’d argue, is a laughable argument.”

No second trial has been announced, though even if one is listed, it will be some distance away. Reddington has confirmed he doesn’t have room in his schedule until June 2027, so for now Clancy will remain under close observation in a Massachusetts psychiatric facility.