Lindsay Clancy Defense Pivots to Reasonable Doubt Strategy After Mistrial Lindsay Clancy's defense lawyer Kevin Reddington shifted from a postpartum psychosis defense to questioning whether Clancy killed her three children, prompting a mistrial and a new legal battle. Lindsay Clancy's defense lawyer made a surprise shift in strategy Tuesday, moving away from his trial argument that she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis. Defense Questions Evidence Of KillingLegal analysts say the new approach questions whether Clancy killed her children at all. The change came during a hearing before Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth Superior Court. Where is the evidence that she did this? Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked the judge.Where is the evidence she did this? Reddington told the court there is no evidence she made any statements about the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments. Plymouth County prosecutors countered by calling his assertion a laughable argument. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who has closely followed the case, said the shift is striking.He noted Reddington offered to stipulate at the start of the first trial that Lindsay killed her three children. Rahmani said the new argument raises reasonable doubt about whether Clancy actually killed them. The jury in the first trial deadlocked 11-1, with only one man voting to convict Clancy of murder. The 11 others sided with Reddington's not guilty due to mental illness or defect defense.Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors could not agree following roughly a week of deliberations. Since then, several jurors have spoken publicly about the 11-1 split. Reddington has called the lone holdout an obstructionist, first last week when approached by Fox News Digital and again outside the courthouse Tuesday. Attorneys for the holdout juror insist he followed the law and remains a patron of class.Gaps In Physical Evidence HighlightedClancy is accused of strangling her three children with exercise bands in January 2023. She was found in the backyard suffering from injuries that left her paralyzed after a suicide attempt. During the hearing, Reddington pointed to gaps in the physical evidence, including blood, DNA, timing and circumstances surrounding Clancy's suicide attempt. He also raised concerns about the prosecution's case and the police investigation.Rahmani said the new approach could be a kitchen sink strategy or a real shift toward a third party culpability defense at a retrial. That would mean arguing someone else is the real killer instead of focusing on insanity or lack of criminal responsibility. Reddington filed a motion asking Sullivan to override the deadlocked jury and enter a not guilty finding. He argued the Commonwealth's evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction.Such motions are routine but seldom successful. Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate following the case, said the argument is nuanced. She explained Reddington had to argue sufficiency of evidence under Rule 25(b)(2) case law. Erskine said Reddington told the judge he asked for a Bowden instruction and was denied.Legal Analysis Of New StrategyThat meant he was challenging the poor investigation and search at the home by police. She called it a different argument than the prior Rule 25 motion that Sullivan denied after the mistrial. Erskine said it was a total surprise that his strategy changed from the original 25(b)(2) motion. She did not expect it.The case is due back in court on Nov. 2 for another motion hearing. Clancy has pending motions to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds and to open an inquiry into the investigation. Prosecutors now face a dilemma over whether to retry the case or offer a plea deal.