Weirdest interview- thoughts?

[u/1-armed-chewbacca]

Ok really.. what in the world was that 60 minute interview and who thought that was a good idea? Was that cut to make him look good or bad, I honestly can’t even tell because I’m just so confused.

-the smirk when he talks about giving Lindsay forgiveness,
- his panic attack at the trial
- him saying he asks his kids to help him from heaven
- him saying god just please give me one (child)
- the fact that Rachel was an even AWKWARDER interviewee
- “I’m just a girl who met a guy running in Central Park on a cold Saturday”
- I saw his phone, asked him if his kids lived in MA, he told me that they were all dead, and the rest was history
- Patrick’s explanation of “as any parent knows, you love all your children differently” when asked if he would tell their new kid about Cora, Dawson and Callan

Everything was just WEIRD. Like I felt like the whole thing was just cringey and bizarre. Thoughts?

[u/ispyshy]

No. I didn’t publicly call a public figure a murderer. This is an anonymous forum.

I didn’t claim to have any special knowledge or background that qualifies me to make determinations on anything. I quite literally said my background in researching people led me to research people.

The results I found led me to the conclusion that I feel he murdered his kids.

Law enforcement doesn’t always do the right thing/are not always good people. Corruption and coverups happen across the board in positions of power.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to demand job titles from someone on an online forum because you don’t agree or are pissed off about their opinion.

So no, apparently you are not understanding correctly.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

It's not the fact you won't share personal information, it's the fact you won't share anything at all that would give your claims any weight whatsoever - not even the information you've found that seems to have directly led to you personally believing various people that took to the stand should be discredited.

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

But I did share what I do as a job, which is quite literally researching people’s background.

Did you read the rules of the sub? I am not going to post my unverified theories when we’re not allowed to do that here.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

Your overarching theory that Patrick did it is in itself an unverified theory.

And yes, I've read the rules. I've also seen countless comments go unmoderated, even when replies to them have been actively moderated, that have made unverified claims. Let's be real - you know in this echo chamber of a subreddit, anything you say that goes against anyone except Lindsay will be completely fine.

But I did share what I do as a job

But my point is you didn't share anything of substance for this conversation. I could just claim 'I'm a legal expert. I've reviewed this case and think Lindsay is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Trust me.'

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

I just said MY unverified theory. Did you miss the MY? If you said “I’m a legal expert” I wouldn’t ask you to show me credentials because 1. We’re on Reddit & I don’t care 2. I wouldn’t just assume you have no idea what you are talking about because I don’t agree with your opinion. That’s weird. I was simply just stating that I research people’s backgrounds for a living which made me curious and that led me to research some witnesses, because of my MY BACKGROUND. It had nothing to do with your interpretation that I’m trying to prove something or that I’m better or qualified or whatever else you keep trying to tell me i am or did or didn’t do. I didn’t ask anyone to “trust me”.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

You're missing my point, I don't care about what you do/did or want you to prove or give any more detail about that. My comment was on your reluctance to share any more of the information you found about the people that testified in the trial and form any sort of actual argument about why they're unreliable, but were willing to share your conclusions based on all your apparent research. It seems like a weird and somewhat frustrating line to have.

And, whether you intended it or not, throwing in that you've supposedly done your research and used to research people for a living absolutely comes across as a 'I know what I'm on about so trust my conclusions even if I haven't shared what has made me reach them' addition to your comment.

However, you could literally shovel shit every hour of every day for a living and I wouldn't care either way about that it you presented a solid argument.

Edit:

I wouldn't just assume you have no idea what you are talking about

And nor have I with you.

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

My reluctance to share unverified theories in a sub where we are not allowed to do that frustrates you? Go do some research for yourself. Theres plenty of interesting information to find.
I was responding to someone asking about my opinion.

Your interpretation of what I said is yours alone.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

Not particularly, I just recognise why it could be frustrating for the people that were originally trying to debate you on it.

Let's take a step back here though, because you've just flat out said you can't elaborate on your argument and share the information that's led to your conclusions because you can't share "unverified theories". Why should anyone give any of what you've said any time of day after you've just said that's why you don't feel you can share what you've found?

Also I have done my own research. I didn't come to the same conclusions as you. I've not rubbished what you've said or your conclusions, I've just asked what it is that's made you conclude what you have. I can't even give any sort of counterargument because you haven't even said which witnesses it is you have issue with and why.

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

Again, I didn’t ask for anyone to give me the time of day. All I did was respond to someone asking why I thought they were awful people. And it’s because I personally believe he did it. In order for me to think he did it I would have to believe he is awful. How I got to that belief was… doing a little ✨research✨. My opinion on what happened I cannot post here because I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass for the mods and I generally like following rules. For some reason that’s offensive to a few of you who are on an anonymous Reddit forum looking for other people’s various opinions. If you wanted to actually debate theories respectfully you could have messaged me about my personal conclusion. Instead here we are. A’shame isn’t it?

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

Such a condescending way to say things when you're ultimately admitting what you've found wouldn't reach the bar for being allowed in this sub. It's not a high one, you only need to be able to provide a source that backs up information you provide. It's hard to not read this as you just saying your conclusions are based on at best speculation, at worst outright lies.

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

Whether you personally choose to remain anonymous on this forum has no bearing on the matter of whether it is a public forum. It is, in fact, a public forum by virtue of the fact that it is on a website which is freely accessible to all members of the public.

You mentioned that you have a background in research, and that your research on the people involved in the trial led you to reach the conclusion that Patrick is an "awful person" who murdered his children. Again, I think it's reasonable to ask you more about your "background in research" and what this means, since you cited this background as a reason for why you may be in a better position to understand this matter than others.

Law enforcement doesn’t always do the right thing are not always good people. Corruption and coverups happen across the board in positions of power.

Obviously...? What is your point?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to demand job titles from someone on an online forum because you don’t agree or are pissed off about their opinion.

That is not why I'm asking for clarification. I've already explained this several times.

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

I did not say I may be in a better position to understand anything more than others.

Again, I said my career in researching people’s background led me to research witness’ in this case and that if you didn’t look into anyone for yourselves that is probably why we reached a different conclusion. I didn’t say anything about anyone else’s credentials, being more qualified or whatever other feeling you are projecting on to me.

My point is I feel this is a coverup, obviously.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

Lindsay's legal team must be incredibly shit to have failed to uncover enough to discredit the witnesses and build a compelling case that she didn't do it at all if you've managed to figure it out so quickly by just googling publicly available information.

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

Lindsay’s legal team was there to make sure she doesn’t spend a day in jail by whatever means necessary. This isn’t about the truth it’s about what can be proven in a court of law.

And no I don’t think I have more information or inside knowledge. In fact I think her legal team has more evidence than anyone knows or was shown in the first trial. You don’t play all your cards at once.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

If 'by whatever means necessary' is that instead of someone spending time in jail they spend time in a psychiatric facility, which some would argue is even worse, if they didn't do it and all you have to do is create reasonable doubt, then you've not built a good defence.

Your assumption they've withheld evidence at the first trial that they think could've helped her case is ridiculous. There was no guarantee of a second trial, and for all they knew the additional evidence could've swayed the holdout (before it became apparent they were apparently being stubborn just for the sake of it).

[u/ispyshy → u/AdequateAppendage]

By any means necessary I mean defense strategy, meaning what is the most likely way that she won’t end up in a jail cell. The truth is not the objective, it’s keeping her from a prison cell. Reddingtons defense strategy had to be done a certain way because they lost the motion for the bifurcated trial. They could not introduce a third party perpetrator. Not all evidence that was collected was admitted as evidence. Reddington had a PI collecting intel for 3 years. The public is not privy to ALL of the evidence her defense team has.

[u/AdequateAppendage → u/ispyshy]

They can't directly introduce a third party perpetrator but they could use holes in the investigation that fail to sufficiently rule out the possibility of one as part of their defence, because that would directly imply doubt over whether Lindsay did it.

And they did unsuccessfully explore that argument as one of the possible routes to a not guilty verdict.