The Lindsay Clancy case has been nothing short of a goat rodeo since the trial began in July. That trial ended in a mistrial in early September, but on Tuesday, the defense attorney, staring down the specter of a second trial, looked at the judge and ordered up some bigger goats.
Judge William Sullivan held a hearing to consider all kinds of motions. Among the motions put forward by the defense attorney Kevin Reddington was a request to investigate the holdout juror in the case, a call the judge will make on November 2.
Reddington had a bit more on his plate than that, however. The judge is considering ordering a new trial. And what the defense attorney did Tuesday morning was an Olympic-sized switcheroo in his case. It was a move designed to please the pink-shirted caterwaulers who arrayed themselves outside the courthouse during the first trial to support "Kevin" and the woman whose defense stipulated that she murdered her three kids.
It would serve to stir up more evidence-free TikTok videos proclaiming her husband the murderer, which Reddington appeared to bring up, however obliquely, in court.
And... poison a potential jury pool.
And here's what he did. After a seven-week-long trial that caused a disturbance in the force of American life, Reddington went from admitting that his client killed her kids due to postpartum psychosis to arguing that there was no evidence put forward in the trial proving she either strangled her babies with her rope-like exercise bands or admitted to it.
No, really, he did.
More: The Pressure on Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Is About to Go Nuclear
Internet sleuths did their thing.
June 26: “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.
September 6: “I’m saying she suffered postpartum psychosis WHEN SHE KILLED HER KIDS” — Reddington
September 8: "Look, she did a horrible thing. Can't be worse" — Reddington
🚨 OH. MY. GOD.
— Lindsay 🇺🇸 (@TheLinzerShow) September 29, 2026
I cannot believe Reddington just did this.
“WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE SHE KILLED HER KIDS?” He says there is NO evidence — and that there was NO investigation. They just took other people’s word for it that Lindsay killed her kids
For weeks, some Lindsay Clancy… pic.twitter.com/7LVsL4NjeD
In court, Reddington spoke mostly about Patrick Clancy's movements in the house, when he made a phone call, and why Lindsay would throw herself out a window to commit suicide with no socks on in 30º weather. But the coup de grâce was when Reddington argued in court that Lindsay was told she'd committed the murders and didn't know any better and assumed the story was true.
So, you have no evidence from the defendant [who did not testify in her own trial], an uncorroborated statement of a defendant in Massachusetts obviously is not evidence, you have to have corroboration. I submit to the court there is no evidence she made any statements.
As far as the killing of the children which forms the basis of the indictments, the time frame does not match.
Reddington argued that the timeline did not match her ability to separately take each one of her children to the basement, place them face first to the floor, and wring the life out of her 5-year-old daughter, Cora; 3-year-old son, Dawson; and 8-month-old baby boy, Callan.
Reddington seemed to rely on the TikTok crowd's belief that the husband did it, arguing that the dad's timeline of going to the pharmacy to get a prescription, make a phone call, pick up food, and come home, where he was put off by the quiet household, didn't match up. Patrick Clancy looked upstairs for the kids and eventually found the open window and his wife in the snow. He testified he ran down to her to give her aid and asked where the kids were. She said they were in the basement.
That's where he said he found their lifeless bodies.
While Reddington claims he's made these points before in trial, prosecutor Shanan Buckingham said they were news to her. She said it was a completely new line after the mistrial.
Reddington asked the judge for a required finding of not guilty because the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient for a conviction. He said prosecutors failed to prove she did it, though it was understood, and failed to prove she was criminally responsible for the acts.
The possible new trial date will be discussed at the November 2 hearing.
I discussed this wild switcheroo in the Adult in the Room Podcast livestream on Tuesday shortly after these courtroom dramatics. You'll see it all.