What Lindsay Clancy’s Defense Filing Did to Patrick Clancy

Kevin Reddington filed a motion after the Lindsay Clancy mistrial stating there is no evidence Lindsay killed her children. True crime circles assumed the defense was pointing the finger at Patrick Clancy. That reading is wrong. The filing is a Rule 25(b) motion — a procedural argument that the prosecution’s trial record lacks direct physical evidence of the act. It’s a technical challenge to evidentiary sufficiency, not a narrative shift and not an accusation. But the distinction doesn’t matter to the internet. Patrick Clancy is now fighting off accusations manufactured by people who read a legal headline and filled in their own theory. Reddington is also pursuing the single holdout juror from the 11-1 mistrial split — investigating a private citizen who voted guilty. Between the procedural play and the juror investigation, the defense’s post-trial tactics demand scrutiny.

Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod

X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #Rule25b #Mistrial #KevinReddington #PostpartumPsychosis #Duxbury #MurderTrial