Skip to content
Bramble

Crime

Clancy's lawyer argues no evidence she killed her children at first hearing after mistrial

At the first hearing since the Sept. 4 mistrial, Lindsay Clancy's lawyer argued prosecutors had not proved she killed her children, a shift from the trial defence. Prosecutors called it "laughable"; the judge put decisions off until Nov. 2.

10 outlets · 6L · 0C · 4R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 7). New coverage since the last version from Fox News, Metro.

Image: Just the News
Image: NBC News
Image: The Independent
Image: New York Post
Image: CBS News
Image: Washington Examiner
Image: Fox News
Image: ABC News

1 / 8

The story, neutrally told

Lindsay Clancy returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Tuesday for the first hearing since her murder trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4. Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, argued there was not enough evidence that she killed her three children, saying "This entire case is based on speculation." At trial the defence did not dispute the killings and argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis, so most outlets described the new argument as a change of approach.

Reddington said the refusal to split the trial in two left the defence in a "conundrum" of having to admit culpability to raise criminal responsibility; outside court he said the argument was "not new rocket science". Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the argument "laughable" and said the trial record was "voluminous" with evidence that Clancy did it. Judge William Sullivan took the motion under advisement and pushed decisions to Nov. 2 without setting a new trial date; Reddington said he could not start a second trial before June.

Prosecutors have not said whether they will retry Clancy; the options are first-degree murder, lesser charges such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, or dropping the case. The jury was reported split 11 to 1; jurors say the holdout, Michael Desronvil, refused to acquit, while he says he had no doubts, and the defence argues he should have been removed. Prosecutors have also asked that Reddington stop making extrajudicial statements to the media, which the Boston Globe and WBZ-TV oppose.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left6 outlets

Framing
Straight court reporting that leads on the defence's new no-evidence argument, with legal experts and Reddington's own explanation (bifurcation refusal, "not new").
Emphasis
Reddington's stated reasoning, the procedural motion, the holdout juror dispute, and prosecutors' undecided retrial options.
Leaves out or plays down
Less on the fact that Reddington offered no alternative suspect or theory beyond what NPR notes; little on defence criticism of police work.
Charged language
“surprising turn”“striking turn”“stunning argument”
For example
“a striking turn after a lengthy trial that focused more on her mental state than on whether she took their lives.” — NPR
“it's not new rocket science by any means.” — CBS News
“a claim that prosecutors called “laughable.”” — NBC News

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right4 outlets

Framing
Frames the argument as a reversal or shift by the defence, with sharper headlines and emphasis on legal analysts' speculation about a new strategy.
Emphasis
The change from the trial position, the physical-evidence critique and third-party-culpability speculation, and the holdout juror.
Leaves out or plays down
The New York Post and Fox give less weight to Reddington's explanation that he argued this in a motion for a required finding; Just the News leaves out the hearing's outcome.
Charged language
“wild U-turn”“stunningly”“explosive doubt”“changes tune”“obstructionist”
For example
“Lindsay Clancy lawyer stunningly suggests no evidence mom killed her kids in wild U-turn after mistrial” — New York Post
“Lindsay Clancy lawyer raises explosive doubt over who killed her children” — Fox News
“The argument marked a notable change from Clancy’s first trial” — Washington Examiner