Lindsay Clancy: The Legal Trap the Internet Fell For

The Lindsay Clancy defense made a move that set the internet on fire. After the mistrial, Kevin Reddington filed a motion stating there is no evidence Lindsay killed her children. The public assumed he was accusing Patrick Clancy. The truth is far more calculated. Reddington filed a Rule 25(b) motion — a procedural argument that the prosecution’s official trial record lacks the direct physical evidence required to sustain the charges. It’s a technical challenge about what made it into the record, not a claim about who committed the act. Patrick Clancy is absorbing the fallout of a filing that was never designed for public eyes. Reddington is also investigating the single holdout juror from the 11-1 split. The defense is playing every angle — procedural loopholes and private citizen investigations simultaneously.

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