IF YOU BELIEVE PATRICK DID IT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION. This is what is holding me up and why I believe what I believe. Don’t answer with another question and don’t tell me all the reasons I’m wrong… Just answer this ONE very simple question. If he knows Patrick... did it, why in 3 YEARS and the ENTIRE trial was it never brought up. Watch the whole video. If you don’t it’ll be very apparent. Also because apparently I have to spell absolutely everything out — I am not retarded. I know what a defense attorney is and what a prosecuting attorney is. Don’t tell me it’s because that’s not his job. My question is why if Reddington KNEW Patrick did it, he didn’t figure out a way to expose it and avoid Lindsay being brought to trial with THREE YEARS to be able to. Because there absolutely is a way to do it if the evidence is strong enough against Patrick. The defense attorney is 100% allowed to pursue an alternative perpetrator defense. It's also legal under Massachusetts law, section 1105 of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence. If third party culpability is suggested, the defense attorney must bring substantial, non-speculative evidence that links the other person to the crime before the defense attorney can present it to the jury. And I’ll even add like I said in this video — WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE SUGGESTED PATRICK IN 3 YEARS EITHER?show more

This thing smells like a psyop to me. Too many "influencers" too invested in it, media too invested in it. I think its bullshit

Patrick and his family testified on behalf of the defense. That's a big deal. As the defense attorney, he's not there to prosecute or prove who did it, he's there to defend his client. But he can undermine a witness without explicitly telling the jury what he thinks happened. Questions about Patrick's timeline, inconsistencies, devices, photographs, DNA, etc. can preserve issues and expose weaknesses without Reddington ever accusing Patrick of killing his children. Today when a reporter asked his thoughts on Patrick's involvement, he pointed them back to Patrick's 911 call and told them to draw their own conclusion from it. Lindsay isn't heard on the 911 call. Because Lindsay was unconscious. If she did it, psychosis or not, she deserves the maximum penalty. But not without a thorough investigation. Way too much reasonable doubt. The doctors deserve the maximum penalty as well.

It’s a psyop, you can tell because the usual suspects are uber emotional and require you to pick a side that lumps you in with a political faction. They tried essentially this exact case in the UK three years prior and did the same thing. They do it to steer the crowds through upcoming cases. They start with more obvious verdicts and build journalists reputation through those, then the more subjective cases- then they can straight up get away with whatever because you now belong to a “team” and the other side must be crazy because they were historically.

Patrick's testimony alone should have brought about reasonable doubt. I listened to his testimony and the first responders testimony. They dont match. Red flags. Timeline dont match red flag, as far as the fricking expert lawyer I have no answer for him.

Patrick was not investigated. He has ties to the police department and the DA’s office. The testimony by many witnesses was always preceded by “Patrick said”. No one tested the white powder. His dna is on the exercise bands. He was having an affair.

I’m sure if he thought he could prove Patrick did it, he would have tried, but because of the lack of investigation, all he can do is use the evidence presented to show there’s reason to doubt Patrick’s story and prove reasonable doubt for Lindsey. He has said he doesn’t think she did it.

He changed his shoes and jacket between CVS and drugstore. So many inconsistencies. Red’s job was not to prove who did it, but to prove Lindsay didn’t. He did a damn good job!

Possible trial strategy. Get Patrick on the stand, let him commit to his version of events, then poke holes where things don’t add up. If necessary later, those contradictions are already preserved in sworn testimony and can be revisited.

A lawyer can't bring Patrick, at the time of murders was her husband. Patrick isn't his client. The lawyers dont get to investigate the crime. They have to use evidence available. Compare this to charlie kirks case. Some of us dont even believe Charlie was shot w a gun.

The evidence wasn’t strong against Patrick, because no one ever looked It’s the anomalies, the inconsistencies, and lies that are strong with Patrick, which is why they think he did, or might have

Oh, and he sold his house way under market value to the assistant DA. Patrick said Lindsay admitted it, but her throat was so damaged she couldn’t talk. I guess she choked herself. Her body temp was deathly low for what was supposed to be a 30-minute time period.

Because it was never as clear as it was during the trial. 3 years ago we didn’t have Patrick telling his story and first responders telling how it really happened. Also, PC’s uncle was the chief of Duxburry police for 9 years.. that has to be why they didn’t do a thorough investigation, I refuse to believe a whole PD is THAT incompetent.

When you investigate a crime scene, you have to preserve a crime scene and have limited time to complete a thorough investigation and rule out all possibilities as to how 3 children were murdered, and Lindsay almost died using 3-4 methods. Because the people who investigated did not do their job, there lacks evidence to prosecute Patrick. Reddington knows the law like the back of his hand, he cannot point blame onto someone who is not on trial. That is the prosecutions job, the investigators job. Reddington knows how harshly that would back fire as a defense. He brilliantly fought the case in the manner in which he could knowing the evidence and knowing that the jury would able to determine themselves the botched investigation. And look at the result. The jury was able to see what he did, with the tidbits he left out there for the jury and the public to determine. His job was to establish reasonable doubt. Plain and simple, his client would be in prison right now if he blamed Patrick.

Attorney was put in place to get defendant off, not to prove Patrick did it. But I believe that Patrick’s trial will be soon. She repeated (confessed) what she was told by the man that was supposed to protect her and her children.

Dude! Way too long to get to the question! But I was wondering this too. And then I started watching some of the trial lawyers and one of them, I’ll look for her, explained his constraints and what his profession allows under malpractice risks. He’s doing the best he can. 👍🏼

I can respect your opinion even though I don’t agree with it. It’s kind of hard to believe you can genuinely have that opinion though if you watched the whole trial. So many inconsistencies, so many dropped balls, too much of #patricksaid used as evidence. A lot of red flags

Millions of people would never all think the same or agree with everything. If we were all the same, life would be boring. You are spot on. Keep being yourself.

Red filed a bifurcation to split the trial - first to argue if she committed the crime, then if found guilty bringing in insanity plea. Judge denied the bifurcation. So Red could only bring so much to trial & not confuse the jury, so his strategy turned to insanity plea evidence

Simple: She confessed to the murders. This trial was ONLY to determine whether she was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Have fun being on the side of other people who deride MAGAs and Zionists, jackass. You made your bed, not lie in it.

Because people stay silent when leaders do. I don’t know who did what, but Patrick is useless or a jerk for letting those “experts” give his wife all those meds, and no real help and female company with child care, company to go to the park. Wrong way to treat “post partum depression”.

I believe Lindsay Clancy was sure she did it. She asked him to plead NGNCR. He CANT go against his client instruction. Later, during the trial, on the right medication , she finally was able to accepted the fact that it wasn't her ...

Patrick Clancy had an uncle chief of police in that same town who was previously accused of destroying evidence in many cases . The evidence was destroyed that’s why

The false confession, which she made on her husbands word that she had done it, after he told first responders she had confessed to him while unconscious and unable to speak...

I think it’s because there isn’t enough concrete evidence to point the finger at him BECAUSE of the lack of investigation. I believe the police started the investigation believing Lindsay did it and he was never thoroughly investigated. Can’t come w/o proof unless you’re the CW🙃

THIS. Questions are fair. Question Patrick. Question the timeline. Question the investigation. But at some point you have to connect those questions to actual evidence. If there were substantial, non-speculative evidence that Patrick killed his children, Lindsay’s own attorney had every fucking incentive to pursue it. He didn’t. I won’t fill gaps in the evidence with a theory simply because the theory fills the gaps.

Good point. My entire take at this point is her own family didn’t want this to go to trial. Even Patrick. But we have the entire internet (Facebook is ridiculous rn) debating every minute detail. It’s weird, man. Makes you wonder what the motivation behind this media circus might be.

Why would she crush up her own pills? Why do all of the brilliant minds who understand that the government murdered Charlie Kirk not understand this? You are short on details, bro. Patrick is 1000% as guilty as Dan Flood and JD Vance

He failed her and he failed his kids. He was negligent at the very least.

I was wondering the same. I still believe he did it and he possibly made her insane with pills so she can’t remember anything.

Now…there are a lot of inconsistencies. IF she isn’t guilty (which it appears that she is), could it be possible that he was going the insanity and not responsible for her actions as a first wave? Then, go back in and build a case (publicly) against the husband? I don’t know…everything about this case is just nuts!!!

Exact same thing happened in Newcastle ireland Same date. Nurse, 3 kids, similar names same ages. postpartum dramatic trial. Psyop.

BECAUSE MASSACHUSETTS ALLOWS THE BOWen Argument, they can challenge the evidence because the burden is on the Prosecutor , Police formed the murder-suicide theory early, failed to seize medication evidence, verify pill-crushing, or complete a full blood-pattern reconstruction

Because defense attorneys almost never argue that some one other specific person did, it makes the jury think the burden of proof shifts. Known strategy.

For me, it’s bc she said she did it Aren’t we’re supposed to believe all women?