Lindsay Clancy's ex-husband's attorney has vowed legal action against 'conspiracy theorists' spreading 'misinformation' about him and the deaths of his three children.

An attorney for Patrick Clancy released a pointed statement on Tuesday, calling for the end to the 'outright falsehoods that Patrick was somehow involved in the death of his young children and other vile claims,' according to ABC 7 News.

Lindsay, 36, is accused of intentionally strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

The nearly six-week trial ended in a dramatic deadlock Friday, when a judge declared a mistrial after the 12 jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. 

Despite a trial that hinged almost entirely on Lindsay's state of mind, social media users spent five weeks constructing their own version of events, obsessing over details as trivial as the shoes her ex-husband wore on the night their children died. 

Patrick's attorney, Howard Cooper, said Patrick and his family have endured a 'relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign' in recent months.

'Enough is enough - this spread of blatant and baseless falsehoods must stop,' Cooper said, according to ABC.

'Those responsible should understand that there will be consequences, and every appropriate measure will be pursued to hold them accountable, including legally. Law enforcement has been notified,' he added.

He accused 'minor celebrities, so-called influencers and outright conspiracy theorists' of fueling a relentless campaign of 'misinformation' seemingly designed to boost their own social media profiles.

His lawyer further claimed that those behind the social media posts also appear to be seeking a 'potential profit' while publishing what they 'know to be outright falsehoods' about Patrick. 

The former labor and delivery nurse admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, hoping to be committed to a state mental health facility rather than sent to prison. 

Lindsay's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and the effects of being heavily medicated by doctors. 

Prosecutors, however, argued that she deliberately killed her children as part of a plan that involved sending her husband, Patrick, out on errands while she strangled the children in the basement before attempting to take her own life. 

Despite a barrage of baseless online theories targeting Patrick, surveillance footage and phone records showed he was nowhere near the house when the killings took place.

However, his attorney said the 'insatiable media coverage remains at a fever pitch,' resulting in damage to Patrick's 'reputation, livelihood and life,' according to the statement. 

'Patrick has no choice but to address this situation with the clear goal of stopping injurious behavior, creating accountability for lies that are self-serving to the perpetrators, and being able to return his attention to what matters: preserving the memory of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy and supporting other women facing perinatal mental health challenges,' Cooper said.

Professor Wagner, director of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, spoke exclusively to the Daily Mail about the wave of conspiracy theories that swept across the trial.

Wagner studies how people form beliefs from the information they consume - and why some become hooked on conspiracy theories.

He told the Daily Mail's Trial USA podcast on Tuesday that the rush to find alternative explanations stems largely from people's struggle to make sense of a mother killing her own children.

'So many people on Earth are parents and virtually all of those people love their children and cannot imagine doing something like this,' Wagner said.

'When even the defense doesn't dispute that she killed her children, people are often inclined to think: well, how can that be? There must be some other explanation, because I cannot make cognitive sense of the fact that someone would do this willingly,' he added.

'This particular case really hits a conspiracy sweet spot, because it's something almost all of us can identify with in some way. Whereas election fraud or other kinds of political claims only really get excitability amongst people who really care about politics. This is something almost everybody intuitively understands.'

He added that while contradictory information, including evidence presented at trial, can change some minds, others simply dig in deeper. 

'People engage in what psychologists call motivated reasoning,' the professor explained.

'So, if I believe something, I am motivated to keep believing it. If you provide me evidence that I am wrong, I start to look for other evidence that can allow me to keep thinking what I already thought,' he added.

'You could imagine someone going through this internal monologue: 'Well, this mother is accused of killing their kids and I don't believe that. I know men are way more likely to commit acts of violence than women are. So, how could it be that the mother did it?'

'If someone is sure of something, evidence isn't enough. If facts were enough, more people would get their children vaccinated.'

Meanwhile, three women who were jurors in the Clancy trial have spoken out for the first time since the case was ruled a mistrial.

Speaking to NBC10 Boston, the three women detailed the heated arguments they had with the lone male juror who refused to acquit Lindsay. 

One of the women, known only as juror two, told the outlet: 'He, I think got up to the cart [with the exhibits] once and then went back to his seat. He would not interact with us and try to understand. We read to him the definition of reasonable doubt.'

'He said one day "why don't we have the judge read it again?", and we were like no we have it in front of us,' the juror added.

Another woman, the jury's foreperson, told the outlet: 'He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt. 

'I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said "but I'm still not going to say she's not guilty."'

The trio said their clashes with the man became so heated that alternate jurors could hear them through the wall. 

It comes after Reddington spoke on Good Morning America earlier today saying that to his knowledge 11 jurors who agreed believed that Clancy deserved a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, barring the one holdout juror.

He also pleaded with President Donald Trump to consider pardoning Lindsay, who he described as a good person.

Reddington said: 'I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case.

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

Reddington also described her as being 'intelligent' and 'hardworking,' while describing the strong bond he has with his client.

'I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She's such a wonderful, wonderful person,' he said.

• Sign up for the free The Crime Desk newsletter for more coverage of the Lindsay Clancy case