Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has demanded an immediate end to horrific conspiracy allegations surrounding Patrick Clancy, the ex-husband of Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy, following online speculation about the deaths of their three young children.
Speaking in an interview with CBS Mornings on Wednesday, Reddington called on the public to halt wild theories suggesting Patrick was involved in a plot surrounding the tragedy.
"Stop with the speculation and horrific conspiracy allegations that he was involved with some massive conspiracy to kill his children," Reddington said. "It's horrific what this man has been going through and he's entitled to move on with his life."
Reddington, 75, revealed in a second interview Wednesday with NBC News anchor Laura Jarrett that Lindsay Clancy herself is upset by the mounting online rumors about her former husband and certainly does not agree with that.
"The guy was her husband. They had a very, very, very strong relationship," Reddington told the network. "She knows, and it's readily apparent, that Patrick has been set upon and his life has been turned upside down into a nightmare that he doesn't deserve."
Lindsay Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse, is accused of intentionally strangling her three children: five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan. The killings occurred using exercise bands at their home in Duxbury, a coastal town south of Boston in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, in January 2023.
Standoff Over Online Speculation
Following the tragedy, Patrick Clancy divorced Lindsay, moved across state lines to New York City, and married infertility specialist Rachel Danis earlier this year.
Patrick later took the stand as the prosecution's first witness when Lindsay's trial opened in July.
The high-profile trial ended in a dramatic deadlock on Friday when the judge declared a mistrial after 12 jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict following nearly six weeks of grueling testimony.
Despite the legal proceedings hinging almost entirely on Lindsay's state of mind, online sleuths spent five weeks constructing alternative narratives, fixating on Patrick's movements and even the shoes he wore on the night the children died.
Reddington hit back at attacks on Patrick's character, praising him for standing by Lindsay through her severe mental health crisis, emotional trial, and legal battles against medical providers.
"Patrick was a man who stood by his wife through all of this difficulty, of the medical issues, the psychiatric issues, the pharmaceutical issues," Reddington told CBS Mornings. "The fact that he's moving on with his life and still standing by Lindsay as far as the legal issues tells the tale."
Insanity Defense and Medical Claims
Lindsay admitted to killing the three children inside their home but entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. She hopes to be committed to a state mental health facility rather than sent to prison.
Reddington argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a severe mental illness that can occur after childbirth, alongside the effects of being heavily medicated by doctors.
The couple brought legal claims against healthcare providers whom they blame for failing to properly diagnose her condition and pumping her with medication.
State prosecutors argued that Lindsay deliberately killed her children as part of a planned attack. They alleged she sent Patrick out on errands while she strangled the children in the basement before attempting to end her own life.
However, evidence presented at trial flatly contradicted online theories. Surveillance footage and telephone records proved Patrick was nowhere near the house when his children were killed.
Legal Threats Against Conspiracy Theorists
Patrick's attorney, Howard Cooper, issued a pointed statement on Tuesday, warning that legal action will be taken against individuals spreading misinformation about his client, as reported by ABC 7 News.
Cooper said Patrick and his family have endured a relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign in recent months.
"Enough is enough: this spread of blatant and baseless falsehoods must stop," Cooper said. "Those responsible should understand that there will be consequences, and every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally. Law enforcement has been notified."
Cooper accused minor celebrities, so-called influencers and outright conspiracy theorists of fueling misinformation to boost their social media profiles and seek potential profit while publishing what they know to be outright falsehoods.
He added that insatiable media coverage remains at a fever pitch, causing damage to Patrick's reputation, livelihood and life.
"Patrick has no choice but to address this situation with the clear goal of stopping injurious behavior, creating accountability for lies that are self-serving to the perpetrators, and being able to return his attention to what matters: preserving the memory of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy and supporting other women facing perinatal mental health challenges," Cooper said.
Jurors Speak Out and Defense Seeks Dismissal
Meanwhile, three female jurors from the trial spoke out publicly for the first time during an interview with NBC10 Boston after the case was ruled a mistrial.
The women detailed heated arguments inside the jury room caused by a single holdout juror who refused to vote for Lindsay's acquittal.
One panelist, identified as juror two, recalled the holdout's refusal to engage with evidence. "He, I think got up to the cart with the exhibits once and then went back to his seat," she said. "He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him the definition of reasonable doubt."
She added that when the juror asked why the judge could not re-read the definition of reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required for conviction, fellow jurors noted they already had the text in front of them.
The jury foreperson told the outlet that the holdout explicitly acknowledged having reasonable doubt. "He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt," she said. "I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said 'but I'm still not going to say she's not guilty.'"
The clashes became so heated that alternate jurors could hear the arguments through the wall.
Reddington told CBS Mornings that the disclosures from jurors who have spoken out prompted him to seek having the entire case against Lindsay thrown out at a September 29 hearing.
Under American criminal law, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from being tried twice for the same offense after a mistrial unless there was a manifest necessity to end the proceeding.
"It will be a motion to dismiss based on what's called double jeopardy grounds, because there's no... manifest necessity," Reddington said. "You have to have a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial for obvious reasons: the invested time that the jurors put into it, the court, the staff, the defendant, the prosecution, everybody."
Reddington claimed that the judge allowed a preventable problem to spiral into a mistrial, arguing that the court should have questioned the holdout juror regarding his alleged refusal to follow the reasonable-doubt standard and replaced him if necessary.
