Judge Stops Lindsay Clancy Dead in Her Tracks as Admitted Child Killer Tries Again to Escape Consequences of Her Evil Actions

You almost have to give Kevin Reddington, the bellicose lawyer for child-killer Lindsay Clancy, a bit of credit for sheer gall. Almost.

Reddington, those of you who follow the case will remember, absolutely never disputed during the trial the fact that his client killed her three children in 2023. In fact, his entire defense was based around the insanity plea — that his client was in the throes of postpartum psychosis and therefore not responsible for her actions.

This almost worked, thanks Massachusetts’ ridiculously lenient insanity plea laws, which place the burden of proof on the prosecution. There was one holdout on the jury, which voted 11-1 for acquittal.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial. Reddington tried to get the juror thrown off and is still seeking retribution against him. But enough about that, because for right now, he wants his client declared not guilty by the judge.

The reason? The prosecution didn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his client did the thing that his side admitted she did by entering an insanity plea and forcing prosecutors to prove she wasn’t insane when she killed her children.

The prosecution called this motion “laughable” — and Judge Sullivan agreed in a ruling Thursday in which he declined to find Clancy not guilty.

From The New York Times on Thursday:

A rational juror could reasonably have found Ms. Clancy, 36, guilty of the murder of her three children based on the evidence presented, the judge, William Sullivan, wrote on Thursday,” The New York Times reported.

Judge Sullivan rejected the lawyer’s new arguments that the prosecution failed to present enough evidence that Ms. Clancy killed her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — or that she was criminally responsible.

At a hearing on Tuesday in Plymouth, Mass., the defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, criticized the police investigation and said that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to show that Ms. Clancy had killed her three children.

This would be funny were the implications not so serious.

Except in the la-la land of TikTok, where various engagement-farming flibbertigibbets and sob-sisters tried to pin the crime on Lindsay’s ex-husband Patrick, nobody — nobody — seriously cast doubt upon whether or not Clancy strangled her children. Not even Reddington, at least before Tuesday. In fact, he spent the entire case arguing simply that it wasn’t her fault.

It was almost enough, and he wanted the one juror who didn’t agree removed from the panel so that the jury could go back in, under the case he had presented, and presumably find his client not responsible for the deaths she caused because she was mentally ill.

Now we’re supposed to not believe what Reddington spent the trial presenting? Even Sullivan seemed to find this almost insulting.

“There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” he wrote, according to The Associated Press.

Indeed, the very idea that there was any question on this point can only be entertained on social media. In a court of law, it’s about as tenable as arguing that JFK wasn’t actually assassinated and instead lived out his final years as the manager of a Dallas-area Whataburger, dying peacefully in his sleep in 2006.

Maybe that kind of logic works on a Twitch stream, but not when you actually have to prove something. Yet, Reddington’s suggestion that the prosecution’s case “was based on speculation” and that there was no police investigation was what he was hoping to ride to a not-guilty verdict from the judge.

Meanwhile, the prosecution — which produced ample evidence at trial that Clancy not only killed her children but planned it out with such cold-bloodedness that an insanity plea was ill-founded — noted this was the first time the defense had even posited the idea that she might not have been responsible.

“For the first time, the defendant is arguing that there is no evidence she did this,” said Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham during the hearing. “I’d suggest to you the entire record is voluminous as to information supporting the fact that she did this.”

Indeed. As for Reddington’s other motions, including investigating the holdout juror, those will have to wait for a November status hearing. Let’s hope that Judge Sullivan treats them with as much deserved derision as he did the attempt to have her verdict overturned.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.