img

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington urges Trump to pardon child-killer Lindsay Clancy

"Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady—the type of person she is and what she’s been through—and consider a pardon."

"Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady—the type of person she is and what she’s been through—and consider a pardon."

Image
Hannah Nightingale Washington DC
Following a mistrial declaration on Friday, defense attorney Kevin Reddington, who represented Lindsay Clancy in the trial over the killings of her three children, has urged President Trump to pardon the admitted child killer.

Speaking with Good Morning America, Reddington said, “Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady—the type of person she is and what she’s been through—and consider a pardon.”



He said Trump had “felt compelled to speak out about this case,” which he hoped meant he would consider a pardon. However, Trump only has the ability to pardon federal charges, and Clancy was hit with state charges in Massachusetts. Trump on Friday said that Clancy “did a horrible, horrible thing” in killing her three children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months—and that “there’ll be a price” to pay by Clancy.

During the sit-down with Good Morning America, Reddington said that Clancy was “hardworking” and a “wonderful neighbor, friend, wife, mother. Just an incredible person.” He said he feels “a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is.”

He also spoke about the one male juror who held out against the 11 others who wanted to issue a not guilty verdict in the case. He said, "I would defend that individual’s right to be a holdout for forever, that’s part of our judicial system and I respect that and I would certainly defend his right to do that.”



“What I was upset about was after that lengthy trial and the work that everyone put into this case, including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their job, their family, where a gentleman had an opinion, not that he was sticking, like, you know, the movie 12 Angry Men, but in fact he had agreed, according to the note from the forelady, that he had doubt but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge. That’s not right. And that’s why I was upset.”

Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2026 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy