There had been no dispute over what Lindsay Clancy did on that cold January day.

For three years, her attorney Kevin Reddington seemed to acknowledge that Clancy killed all her children on January 24, 2023, before attempting to take her own life. She was, he argued at her high-profile trial last month, not guilty simply because she could not be held criminally culpable for her acts. She was suffering from a mental disease or disorder – in her case a rare condition known as postpartum psychosis.

But on Tuesday, almost exactly a month after the judge declared a mistrial in the case of the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict, Reddington seemed to change his tune. His gruff, Massachusetts-accented voice was the same, but his words were a stunning departure.

Reddington was back in court to present two motions: first, that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional rights against double jeopardy. Second, that the court should investigate the allegations of juror misconduct that followed the mistrial.

Arguing the first, and asserting that the judge should find Clancy not guilty and dismiss the charges, he attacked the evidence that the prosecution presented over the six-and-a-half-week trial. Stunning listeners, the tough, sharp-witted, 75-year-old veteran criminal defense attorney demanded to know, ‘Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?’

At the hearing before Judge William Sullivan, Reddington argued that ‘this entire case is based on speculation’ and questioned inconsistencies in the case, asking why there were no blood smears on Clancy’s bedroom floor? Why hadn’t the police tested the residue of the crushed-up substance that prosecutors said Clancy took in what they suggested was a staged suicide bid? And where was the evidence that she did this?

‘There was no investigation,’ Reddington told the courtroom. ‘They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.’

But, while Reddington put on a robust performance, according to legal experts with whom the Daily Mail spoke, the attorney’s theatrical approach may well be an indication that he knows his motions ‘have no real chance of success.’

Clancy lawyer’s new argument raises eyebrows

‘This may have been a “kitchen sink” approach,’ Neama Rahmani, a former prosecutor and President of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told the Daily Mail.

A second expert with whom the Daily Mail spoke was more blunt in his assessment of Reddington’s language. ‘It would strike me as absolutely crazy to suggest with a straight face she did not in fact kill her kids,’ said Mark Bederow, a criminal defense attorney who previously served as a prosecutor in New York.

‘In the earlier stages, before the trial, the defense was willing to stipulate to the fact that she killed her kids. There are numerous public statements that have been made [stating] that she’s killed the kids. Making the argument that there’s no proof that she killed the kids now – I question that.’

Bederow said while it would be one thing to argue that the prosecution didn’t meet the burden of proof, making any suggestion that Clancy did not kill her kids runs Reddington the risk of damaging his credibility as a lawyer with a storied reputation.

‘You sound foolish if the public misinterprets what you’re trying to do,’ Bederow said. ‘What I imagine he’s trying to do is tell the court that the prosecution did not establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘I understand what he’s trying to do, but you have to be real careful on how you articulate that.’

This summer – day after day, week after week – Reddington stood before a judge and jury in Plymouth, Massachusetts, mounting an insanity defense in one of the most heartbreaking trials America has witnessed.

The three Clancy children – five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan – were strangled to death in the basement of the family home using exercise bands. Their mother, the court heard, then attempted suicide, throwing herself from a second story window and succeeding only in paralyzing herself from the waist down.

Yet on Tuesday, Reddington blasted the ‘ridiculous’ timeframe pieced together by Plymouth County’s District Attorney’s Office, on which this scenario was predicated.

He argued that Clancy’s then-husband, Patrick, would not have been able to leave the house, drive to CVS to pick up medication, stop to grab takeout for dinner, return home and find Clancy injured in their backyard in the span of time it took Clancy to strangle their children, slit her wrists and neck and jump out the bedroom window.

For the first time, the attorney claimed: ‘The timeframe does not match.’

The attorney said the thing ‘most chilling’ about the case is that Clancy was told what happened when she came out of a coma.

Clancy case erupts after dramatic mistrial

‘She had no memory of what happened,’ he said. ‘Why does she recall cutting the screen? Why does she recall killing the children?

‘There’s no evidence that she admitted that she did this.’

Rahmani said that Reddington’s recent change of course may also be a preview of how the defense might argue the case differently should it go to a retrial.

‘Either way, this statement will give the conspiracy theorists on social media a lot to work with,’ Rahmani said.

Indeed, the case not only became a fixation for true crime junkies on social media – some of whom espoused the baseless theory that Patrick was somehow involved in his children’s deaths – but sharply divided the public, who either viewed Lindsay as a motherhood martyr or a cold-blooded killer.

It also split the jury. As deliberations dragged on, the claws came out and the jury foreperson revealed that jurors were split 11-1 in the defense’s favor, with a lone holdout refusing to follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.

The jury had been deadlocked for 40 hours when, on September 4, Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial.

But while some might have assumed that this marked an ending, it was only the beginning of the Clancy spectacle.

Days after the trial concluded, jurors began publicly identifying themselves one-by-one. Soon, the identity of the lone juror was revealed. Holdout juror Michael Desronvil pushed back on the accusations that he had willfully ignored the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt, insisting – through his lawyer – that he had no doubt on his stance. Public officials, including the current president of the United States, weighed in on the case.

Perhaps in a bid to prevent a re-run of the heated public discourse that threatened to overwhelm the case first time round and could surely taint any jury pool in a retrial, the prosecution filed for a gag order on Monday, asking the judge to bar lawyers from making statements to the press that would ‘have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings in the matter.’

They cited Reddington’s frequent updates outside the courthouse and his comments about both Clancy and the jurors.

But Bederow wondered if it’s too little, too late.

‘The damage is done,’ he said. ‘In reality, it’s not just Reddington. You have multiple jurors who are making all kinds of statements. It appeared to have been dying down, but the lawyer for the so-called holdout is making his rounds now. Just last night, there was a video played on Fox News from the holdout juror himself. So, who are you gagging?’

Defense and prosecutors unite over delaying retrial date

Neither the defense nor the prosecution wished to set a new trial date on Tuesday, an unlikely piece of common ground for the two sides.

‘Believe it or not, I agree with her,’ Reddington said to laughter in the courtroom after Shanan Buckingham, speaking for the state, argued against setting a date until after the judge had ruled on whether there would indeed be another trial. ‘We’ll both stand together and say we’d rather defer until you make your rulings and then any appellate arguments are presented, rather than pick a trial date.’

His position surprised the judge, who noted that just three weeks ago, Reddington was ready to retry the case immediately.

Bederow empathized that it’s common for lawyers to say things ‘in the heat of the battle’ or ‘in the immediate emotional withdrawal’ of a case. But he also believes that Reddington likely wants to hold off on setting a new trial date because the defense attorney holds out hopes for his motions’ success.

Sullivan said he would take both under advisement and that he would rule at or before the next court date of November 2.