Lindsay Clancy: The Legal Trap the Internet Fell For

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

Here's another case that everybody loves talking about in this room together.

Jen (0:15)

Oh, let's just jump all in.

Tony Brueski (0:17)

Let's just jump in. In the Lindsay Clancy case, we are seeing a massive uproar. And I should also say this, too. This motion has been denied. But let's talk about it for a moment, because people are up in arms about what happened in court the other day. And I want to just inform it's because this is what we're going to talk about here. Initially, it's not about what you think of Lindsay Clancy or not. It's just understanding the procedure of what's actually happening in the courtroom. But a lot of people are shocked at a move that is being interpreted by several. That Kevin Reddington was saying that Lindsay Clancy did not do this. There's no evidence that Lindsay committed the murders immediately. True Crime Circles exploded with theories after a year of arguing severe postpartum psychosis is the defense suddenly claiming someone else did this. The Patrick conspiracy folks went nuts. It's a jarring pivot on the surface that has set the internet on fire. And we need to unpack exactly what Reddington is trying to pull in that courtroom.

We'll also dive into his relentless pursuit of a single holdout juror from the mistrial as well. Let's start with the massive headline, Jen. Reddington is now claiming there is no evidence Lindsay actually killed her children. That's what he argued in front of the judge the other day.

For a moment on a 25B motion, when you see a defense attorney making a pivot like this after months of arguing psychosis, what was your reaction?

Jen (1:47)

Well, my reaction was to find the clip of his opening statement where he says clearly my client murdered the kids. That is not, we're not even arguing that. We're stipulating to that. Of course, the prosecution didn't want to stipulate because they want to prove it so they can put up all the details.

But they stipulated it. So if you look at his opening statement and compare and contrast to his other, it looks like an absolute liar. He's either lied the first time or he's lying the second time.

To me, it's a horrible optic. I understand that he wanted to do the 25B which he was never going to get. It's ludicrous to think he would get it.

Tony Brueski (2:32)

But you're an attorney, it has to represent their client as vigorously as possible. That's what he's doing. I mean, attorneys run this all the time knowing it's never going to go anywhere, but it exists because sometimes it does.

Robin Drake (2:44)

Well, and also because we talked to Eric Faddis yesterday. So we really did a good job deep diving on, you take the Lindsay part out of it and just try to try to look at each little thing that's going on because everyone's trying to understand, just like you did. I mean, you made the absolute perfect statement of why people are up in arms about this because they think he's changed his mind, he's flip-flopping. No, according to the lawyers, what he's doing is he's setting up an appeal. Because unless you make the motion, you can't go to an appellate court if she's found convicted, if she goes back to trial again. So he's actually laying the groundwork for all the appeals that he's going to go to trial if she's tried again and if she's convicted, so he's setting up to go up to the next court. That's what that was all about.

Tony Brueski (3:27)

And it was kind of a somewhat of an argument.

The judge denied it, said no, because the argument was basically, if somebody doesn't understand it, is that if, take the whole thing about the trial out of the picture. Let's say Reddington never argued that she did it. Let's say they were gonna go in and say, prove it, prove it that she did it. They didn't, obviously, but let's just say they did. If they were to have done that, could the state have proven that she did it? The judge ultimately found that there would have been enough evidence to convict her. Reddington was arguing because, well, they didn't do a whole lot of gathering of evidence and all sorts of things with the investigation, which was done fairly poorly at that moment in time, that they wouldn't be able to do that. It was somewhat of an argument. It didn't work, but that's what it was. It wasn't truly, I'm changing my path. It was, well, I'm given an option now to argue this to this. It's like a debate class almost. Here's the subject, let's debate, even though we've been debating this over here. That's essentially what it was. He's not saying Patrick did it or this or that, but that's obviously truly what was happening here.