OVER DEZE AFLEVERING
After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a motion that claimed there is no evidence Lindsay killed her children. True crime communities assumed a strategy shift — from postpartum psychosis to blaming Patrick Clancy. The assumption is wrong. Reddington’s filing is a Rule 25(b) motion, a procedural argument that the prosecution failed to enter direct physical evidence of the act into the official court record. The motion was written for a judge, not for the public. But the collateral damage is real: Patrick Clancy now faces internet accusations generated entirely by a legal technicality. Reddington is also pursuing the holdout juror from the 11-1 mistrial split, investigating the one person who voted guilty. Heading into a potential retrial, the prosecution has to bulletproof its record while protecting the next jury from fear of retaliation.
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
