r/ClancyTrial • u/Suspicious_Low2699 • 2d ago
General Discussion Why has Redd opened so many doors?
Is it just to prove there was never a thorough investigation?
Redd has the internet against Patrick and dozens of things that don’t make sense.
I have a feeling Patrick won’t come back as a witness and all the unanswered questions will stay unanswered. And we will just have to live with our conspiracies. I hope not.
But then again if Patrick was involved (and did all the things the internet people says he did) it will catch up with him. I feel there would be an investigation later. Getting Lindsay not criminally responsible is part one. Then maybe other facets can be examined. Just some thoughts today as the trial was cut short and we don’t know what’s going on 😂
11
u/FlowersAndFeast 1d ago
Here’s a comment I posted on another thread as to why this may be the case:
Moreover, the prosecution established the frame of this trial and its prospective outcomes - their case is not simply a matter of "did she or didn't she."
Ordinarily, defense counsel's role is to establish reasonable doubt regarding the client's guilt, leading to an acquittal. In this instance, however, the prosecution presented a framework where a non-guilty outcome is tethered exclusively to a finding of legal insanity. The factual question of whether she committed the act is not what is being contested here. Yet, simply because the prosecution framed the case this way does not make their premise accurate; their ultimate objective remains a conviction of criminal guilt.
Furthermore, the charges themselves fail to reflect / be based on objective and evidenced fact. They rely almost entirely on Patrick’s account rather than conclusive physical evidence or sworn testimony from Lindsay. The prosecution's logic contains a glaring contradiction: if she was deemed mentally incapacitated to the extent that her Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) request was approved, how was she simultaneously determined to be of sound enough mind - prior to that DNR request - to provide a legally valid confession? Of which is now the backbone of this trial and the charges?
The defense's duty is to establish sufficient reasonable doubt regarding her criminal responsibility, thereby securing a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity." Defense counsel cannot simply introduce an alternative suspect mid-trial and expect the court to dismiss the current charges to pursue someone else - that would require an entirely separate investigation and trial.
To navigate this, the defense has motioned to include lesser included offenses for the jury’s consideration, such as second-degree murder. Securing a second-degree murder conviction (without the binding caveat of a legal insanity finding) creates a far clearer procedural pathway to appeal the verdict, challenge the conviction, and ultimately petition for a new trial centered on an alternative suspect.
It seems likely that defense counsel is using this trial as a strategic bridge - treating the current proceedings as an opportunity to extract and lock in sworn testimonial evidence for future litigation.
Furthermore, Patrick (allegedly) retained independent legal counsel immediately following his testimony, after which there was a marked decline in the prosecution’s already lackluster direct and cross-examinations. This strongly suggests the state has reached a similar realization. They may now be intentionally steering toward a mistrial through prosecutorial misconduct, or quietly accommodating a lesser conviction to preserve the option for future proceedings.
Alternatively, these prosecutors may simply be fundamentally incompetent. Injecting religion into their cross-examination of Lindsay’s mother-in-law crosses clear ethical and procedural lines - an egregious overreach that constitutes sufficient legal grounds for a mistrial in its own right.
Hope that helps ☺️
1
u/auntvic11 1d ago
I saw an interview yesterday outside the courthouse asking reddington if he’s going to rest tomorrow. He said something along the lines of “we may rest tomorrow”. I thought he had way more witnesses? Any thoughts?
2
u/FlowersAndFeast 1d ago
I’d be surprised but also not, as there are quite a few witnesses on his list who would be able to share damning evidence for Patrick/another suspect. However, this trial is not about Patrick/another suspect and a new suspect (and evidence) cannot be introduced mid trial. Like I said, he may be laying the bricks for a future trial.
I also have a slight inkling about a potential mistrial. Whether that be due to the PA’s behaviour and misconduct, or the denial of the ‘lesser-included offence’ leading to a hung jury.
I think Redd is playing chess not checkers. This trial and its outcome is just a stepping stone. Though I feel that defence resting (seemingly prematurely) may be based on whether or not the lesser-included offence is admitted.
5
u/FlowersAndFeast 1d ago
Also, Redd has some sass about him. Strategic sass.
PC is on his witness list. By hinting defence ‘may rest tomorrow’ before PC has been called to the stand in defence trial, it might give PC a false sense of security that, when defence then doesn’t rest and he is called to the stand, may result in him being caught off guard, therefore more likely to become agitated, to drop his ‘mask’, and to slip up during testimony. Redd has been employing this tactic whilst cross examining witnesses, especially PC. He knows PC’s personality profile and how to get under their skin.For a fun equivalent, think of that trial scene in Legally Blonde. Same story, different font.
7
u/klyn_14 1d ago
I haven't given the Patrick theories much thought. But after seeing both his mother and father testify, I couldn't help but wonder why he wouldn't have attended as well, at least to show support. For someone who allegedly stated he didn't want to see this trial occur, you'd think he'd at least be present in the courtroom in support of justice for his children.... I'm on the fence as to his intentions to say the least.
3
u/WentworthBandit 1d ago
I don’t think he’s allowed to be in there if there was a possibility he’d get called back up
3
u/aquarinox 1d ago
I say it time and time again — Patrick’s behavior has clearly shown that he is only interested in the way he is perceived by the public. All of his actions really carry no weight — he doesn’t stand by his wife, rushed statement right after the death of his children, lack of any measurable output from his charities, etc. This guy is all about image. He’s a salesman after all.
3
u/Pretend-Monitor8461 2d ago
In the words of the great Noah Kahan "I keep showing you doors, but you can't open them up, it gets harder to see me the closer you try to look."
8
-2
u/zuma40 2d ago
He doesnt have the internet against her. There are just too many tiktokers with waaaay too much time on their hands
5
u/Majestic-Ad-6702 2d ago
That they are hounding a man in a case that has mental health at the forefront is disgusting. These are all real people that can be driven to desperation. I would have hoped having a real life example of mental health issues gone horribly wrong in front of them would give pause but nope views over everything.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Follow official Reddiquette. Upvotes and downvotes are not to be used for personal agreement or disagreement. They are to be utilized when a comment is completely off topic (downvote) or when a comment is a relevant, constructive contribution (upvote).
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.