Lindsay Clancy was back in court Tuesday morning for her first appearance following the mistrial declared earlier this month in the case involving the deaths of her three young children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
And her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, brought a stunning new argument with him.
Reddington was in court to argue his Rule 25 motion; in it, he asked Judge William Sullivan to enter a required finding of not guilty rather than allow the prosecution to have another shot at trying Clancy. His argument, curiously, was a complete pivot from what was being argued during the trial: that Lindsay Clancy, despite admitting to the killings, was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and was, therefore, not guilty.
In Tuesday's argument, however, Reddington claimed that the prosecution failed to prove she even committed the killings.
“Evidence must be reliable that would allow a rational juror to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt,” Reddington argued, before saying that the prosecution's case was based merely on “speculation.”
He also questioned the investigation itself, maintaining that there were holes in the physical evidence and arguing that Clancy herself had no memory of committing the heinous acts. In fact, he claimed, she had to be told what happened after she awoke in the hospital. Reddington also said Clancy "died" while in the hospital, but didn't elaborate on that blockbuster claim.
“There is no evidence that she did this,” Reddington told the court on Tuesday.
🚨 REDDINGTON: “THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION” INTO WHO KILLED LINDSAY CLANCY’S CHILDREN
— Lindsay 🇺🇸 (@TheLinzerShow) September 29, 2026
While arguing Rule 25 today, Kevin Reddington told the judge there was “no investigation” into who actually killed Cora, Dawson and Callan, and questioned whether the Commonwealth proved… pic.twitter.com/OeRTs4Zbfb
🚨 REDDINGTON: “THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION” INTO WHO KILLED LINDSAY CLANCY’S CHILDREN
While arguing Rule 25 today, Kevin Reddington told the judge there was “no investigation” into who actually killed Cora, Dawson and Callan, and questioned whether the Commonwealth proved Lindsay committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was one of the most striking parts of his argument today.
Amazingly, Reddington asked a question that even he didn't dispute during the trial: “Why would she kill those three children?”
That's quite a pivot from the defense Reddington presented to jurors just a few weeks ago.
During closing arguments, in fact, he repeatedly admitted that his client had killed her children, but argued she was not criminally responsible because of mental illness. “This young lady is not guilty of the killing of her children because she was suffering from a disease and defect,” he told the jury.
Prosecutors, for their part, were incensed that Reddington had made such a dramatic U-turn, telling the judge Tuesday that it was the first time they had heard the defense arguing there was no evidence that Clancy had killed Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
To be precise, Reddington did not argue that someone else killed the children (although he did call into question Patrick Clancy's timeline the night of the killings). His Rule 25 argument is strictly a legal one, maintaining that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence of his client's involvement.
However, based on Reddington's previous behavior, his words Tuesday will only throw red meat to the diehard Lindsay Clancy fans who are clamoring to hold Patrick Clancy legally responsible for the deaths of his young children.
Judge Sullivan did not rule on Reddington’s Rule 25 motion or set a date for a new trial, instead continuing the case to November 2, when all parties will return to court.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.