Kevin Reddington publicly demanded an end to the “horrific conspiracy allegations” targeting Patrick Clancy.
The veteran defense attorney, 75, defended his client’s ex-husband during a Wednesday interview on “CBS Mornings,” insisting the widower “ought to be able to move on with his life” after enduring unfounded theories that he murdered his own three children and framed Lindsay Clancy for the crime. Reddington, who represents the 36-year-old mother accused of strangling Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, with exercise bands in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home, made clear where both he and his client stand on the online speculation.
“Stop with the speculation and horrific conspiracy allegations that he was involved with some massive conspiracy to kill his children,” Reddington said on the CBS program.
“It’s horrific what this man has been going through and he’s entitled to move on with his life.”
Reddington emphasized that Patrick Clancy had remained devoted to his former wife throughout her mental health struggles, supporting her not only through the criminal proceedings but also in their shared lawsuits against the medical providers they accuse of failing to properly diagnose and overmedicating her. “Patrick was a man who stood by his wife through all of this difficulty, of the medical issues the psychiatric issues, the pharmaceutical issues,” the attorney shared. “The fact that he’s moving on with his life and still standing by Lindsay as far as the legal issues tells the tale.”
That support has not shielded Patrick Clancy from a torrent of online abuse. His own attorney, Howard Cooper, told Boston 25 News that “minor celebrities” and “so-called influencers” have propagated “what they know to be outright falsehoods” to boost their followings, subjecting his client and family to “a relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign.” Patrick Clancy himself has spoken of “real-life threats” he faces from the misinformation, telling outlets that the possibility of reliving the tragedy through another trial would be “extraordinarily painful.”
The online fixation on Patrick Clancy has apparently reached his ex-wife as well. Reddington said’ Laura Jarrett that Lindsay Clancy is “upset” by the baseless theories swirling about the man she married.
“She certainly does not agree with that,” Reddington said. “The guy was her husband. They had a very, very, very strong relationship.”
“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,” he added.
Since the trial’s conclusion, Patrick Clancy has relocated to New York City and married infertility specialist Rachel Danis earlier this year. He served as the prosecution’s first witness in the case, which ended with a mistrial last Friday after the jury deadlocked following 38 hours of deliberations spread across seven days. The panel of nine women and three men could not reach consensus, with foreperson Ronnie telling NBC 10 Boston that a sole male holdout juror admitted he had reasonable doubt yet still refused to vote not guilty by reason of insanity. Ronnie said she had begun “filling out” the verdict forms when the man clarified his position: “But I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
The revelations from jurors who have since spoken publicly prompted Reddington to pursue a dramatic legal maneuver. He told “CBS Mornings” he will file a motion to dismiss the entire case against Lindsay Clancy at a September 29 hearing, arguing that double jeopardy protections have been triggered because there was no “manifest necessity” for the mistrial. Reddington contends Judge William Sullivan could have avoided the deadlocked outcome by more thoroughly questioning the holdout juror about his alleged refusal to follow instructions on reasonable doubt, or by dismissing him and restarting deliberations with an alternate. After receiving the foreperson’s note, Sullivan had asked each panelist separately and under oath whether they could follow his legal instructions, then re-read the portion on reasonable doubt.
“It will be a motion to dismiss based on what’s called double jeopardy grounds, because there’s no … manifest necessity,” Reddington explained. “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.”
