Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Argues No Evidence Exists That She Admitted Killing Her Kids

Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer is now saying there is no evidence his client admitted killing her kids, a position that directly contradicts his own past statements about the case.

Kevin Reddington, representing Clancy, argued Tuesday that the prosecution had failed to prove she killed her children beyond a reasonable doubt. His motion for a required finding of not guilty asked the judge to rule that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient for a rational jury to convict.

Reddington’s argument appears to conflict with statements he made before and during the trial. He has previously suggested Clancy knows what happened to her children, and he offered to stipulate in writing that she admits to killing them.

Reddington’s New Argument

Reddington’s central question was blunt. “Where is the evidence that she did this? Where is the evidence that she did this?” he said. “This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?”

He listed specific pieces of evidence he said did not pass legal 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.

The motion itself is a long-shot attempt to avoid a second trial, according to legal experts who spoke to WBZ. Prosecutors have not publicly stated plans to retry Clancy.

The Earlier Statements

Reddington’s argument Tuesday contradicted his own prior positions. In his opening statement in July, he said Clancy “knows what happened to those kids.”

In a pretrial hearing back in June, he 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.”

In an April 2026 motion, Reddington offered to stipulate in writing that Clancy admits to killing her kids. He asked the judge to bifurcate the trial, splitting it into two parts: one for guilt and another for her mental state. That request was denied.

The Motion and the Defense Strategy

Reddington told the judge Tuesday that he was making his required-finding argument in two parts, consistent with his earlier request to split 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.

His comments surprised prosecutors. “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.”

What Reddington Said Outside Court

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.”

Jennifer Roman, a WBZ-TV legal analyst, called the strategy shift very unusual. “It’s really bizarre to me that he’s completely changed his entire strategy and approach to this case, after the fact, on something as substantive as whether or not she actually killed the children,” Roman said.

The move could be designed to pressure prosecutors not to retry the case. Analysts say the defense is trying to create uncertainty about whether a second trial can succeed.

The Case So Far

Clancy’s first trial ended in a mistrial in early September. The case centers on the deaths of her three children.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 2.

What Happens Next

Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz said his office is reviewing the case thoroughly. “We’re doing a very thorough review right now,” Cruz said outside court. “And we’re going to continue to do our job to make sure that we do what’s best for the interest of justice and the interest of the three children.”

Whether the defense’s new stance holds is unclear. Reddington has argued the same point before, but never in public while suggesting his client knew what happened.

There is a strain in the record between Reddington’s past statements and his current position. A lawyer who previously suggested Clancy knew what happened to her children now argues there is no evidence she killed them.

That strain in the record will likely shape how prosecutors and observers assess the case moving forward. The next hearing on Nov. 2 will offer the first look at whether the defense’s new strategy changes the path of the case.

For now, the case remains unresolved.

See the video the story is built around at CBS News.

Boston courtroom · criminal case · defense strategy · Lindsay Clancy · mistrial