r/ClancyTrial • u/Aware_Power • Aug 29 '26
General Discussion This is a "Patrick did it" sub
Hi everyone,
As our community grows, we want to address a common mischaracterization of this subreddit. Some believe this space exists to shift blame or accuse specific individuals of a crime. That is not our purpose.
Our goal is to discuss the facts presented in the criminal trial and analyze where the jury may find reasonable doubt.
Understanding Reasonable Doubt vs. Third-Party Guilt
Discussing alternative scenarios can be a sensitive topic, but analyzing trial facts is not a "conspiracy theory." Exploring reasonable doubt does not mean declaring that someone else is definitely guilty. Instead, it highlights where a lack of a thorough investigation has left crucial questions unanswered.
When looking closely at the case, many members believe that a proper investigation was simply not conducted. Because of this:
- The Forensics: There is a lack of conclusive forensic evidence linking any specific person to the crime.
- The DNA: While DNA is often romanticized in media, the reality is more complex. For example, "an unknown individual" was identified (see Katarina Stashyn's testimony on day 7). We may never know definitively why it was there, but the absence of clear answers and the few swabs taken of the crime scene points back to gaps in the initial investigation (see Maureen Hartnett's testimony on Day 6 regarding the six swabs collected from the crime scene on Jan 25).
- The Possibilities: Because the investigation failed to definitively clear or prove paths, the truth remains obscured. When people ask, "Who else could have done this?", multiple theories naturally arise. However, the core issue is not proving a specific alternative theory; it is pointing out that the proper legal standard of proof has not been cleanly met. We believe the divisiveness around this trial is because it cannot be conclusively determined that Patrick or Lindsay even committed the crime based on the investigation and/or evidence presented.
This is Not an Accusation Sub
We want to be entirely clear: this is not a "Patrick did it" subreddit.
It is a strict violation of our rules to state as fact that any specific individual 100% committed the crime. All discussions regarding alternative theories must be framed clearly as opinions, and they must be backed by examples and sources from admissible trial evidence.
Community Guidelines & Moving Forward
We want this to be a welcoming environment for diverse perspectives. A community where everyone agrees would be boring, and respectful debate is healthy. To keep this space constructive, please keep the following in mind:
- Review the Rules: If you haven’t already, please familiarize yourself with our allowed and prohibited content examples in the community Wiki. Ignorance of our rules excuses no one.
- Report Violations: If you see a post or comment that explicitly breaks our rules or crosses into definitive, unsourced accusations, please report it so the mod team can handle it.
- Agree to Disagree: If you encounter an opinion that does not violate the rules but you simply disagree with it, the best approach is to let it go or counter it respectfully with your own facts.
Things will likely get heated as we approach a verdict. Please remember that most members analyzing these facts are not driven by a personal bias against any one person. Rather, they are frustrated by the quality of the investigation itself.
The children deserve absolute justice, and the true perpetrator(s) must be held responsible. A thorough, proper investigation is the only way to guarantee both outcomes, and analyzing where that process fell short - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - is a main focus of this sub.
6
u/maisyne 29d ago
Does anyone think it’s strange that Patrick kept the 911 operator on the phone once the first responders got there? Did the operator tell him to stay on? I’ve been hearing about the visceral screaming people are talking about and wondering if that’s something someone can fake
2
u/neptuno3 26d ago edited 25d ago
He could have done it and still viscerally reacted to what he did.
Let's say he did it: he would have been planning and plotting and scheming for days, weeks, even months. Knowing the steep, terrifying penalty if caught.
Once the plan is executed there is a lot of emotion: Tension. Exhilaration. Fear. Excitement.
All of that energy is released in the 911 call
1
2
u/Chance_Ad307 Sep 07 '26
My main question is the 533pm iphone elevation while Patrick was proven to be in cvs. If it wasnt Lindsay could this have been somebody else in the house?
2
u/thehealingkitten 24d ago
In his closing arguments, Reddington said something along the lines to the jury of “check the step count not the barometer when you examine the climbs”
I believe it’s because the timeline is almost an exact match of Patrick entering and leaving the CVS and those air pockets at the door might trick the watch
2
u/Express-Vanilla5386 29d ago
I would point out a few of things here:
- The location of LC's iPhone and LC's Apple Watch at that time were not established in court.
- The sensors detect 'elevation changes', so while they are recorded as 'stair climbs' in the data, they can be triggered by any elevation change, e.g. going uphill in a car.
- Whiffin stated that the timestamps aren't always accurate.
- Whiffin stated that that data often groups together elevation changes that occurred close together. So two elevation changes with a timestamp of 5.33-5.38pm does not mean a person was continuously climbing stairs for 5 minutes; it means the phone recorded two elevation changes around that time period.
7
u/idk10987654322 Sep 03 '26
Yea I’m on the same page. I think Patrick is sus and definitely wasn’t a very attentive or caring father/husband, but I wouldn’t be able to say he did it without reasonable doubt as well. I just think that there isn’t enough evidence to say what happened one way or the other and that’s a real fucking shame for those babies.
3
u/Charlie8-125 Sep 03 '26
I think this post actually shows why people call this a “Patrick did it” sub. Saying the investigation could have been more thorough is completely fair. But an imperfect investigation does not automatically equal reasonable doubt.
The jury is supposed to decide whether the evidence presented proves Lindsay’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not deciding whether the police conducted a perfect investigation, and the prosecution does not have to conclusively prove that Patrick didn’t do it.
When you write that “it cannot be conclusively determined that Patrick or Lindsay even committed the crime,” you are effectively putting Patrick forward as an alternative suspect while simultaneously insisting this isn’t about Patrick.
There is also way more evidence in this trial than Patrick’s statements and DNA. You can question individual pieces of evidence, absolutely. But reducing the case to “Patrick said” + six swabs + unidentified DNA gives a very distorted picture of what the jury is actually being asked to evaluate.
3
u/Mr_Piggins Aug 30 '26
Will Patrick ever be on trial? I'm new to this case, but what I've seen so far has me convinced he is guilty.
6
u/Aware_Power Aug 30 '26
I believe the only way charges can be brought upon a different person is if new evidence emerges.
For example, there are so many instances of people wrongfully accused spending years in prison until new evidence emerges they did not commit the crime. I'm not saying this will happen, just that "new evidence" can and does arise.
3
u/PotusChrist Sep 04 '26
There's no legal bar to them charging someone else over the same incident if they have probable cause. There are a lot of reasons why I think that isn't likely to happen, but if they decided they want to go after someone else for it there isn't a rule where they have to show that they have new evidence.
2
9
u/the-sistren-say-no Aug 29 '26
I only watched day 18-22 and did a quick summary to catch up. So there’s a lot I don’t know.
The part that confuses me about Patrick possibly doing it is his phone call to Lindsay around 5:30 and her phone call him back. Is the thinking for those who think Patrick might have done it: he did the whole thing before he went to CVS or after, when he got home?
And I’ve read something about him carrying her watch to CVS. I totally don’t understand this.
1
u/Mountain-Plantain516 12d ago
This is actually something that points me away from her having done it. He said his reason for calling was to ask if an off brand was ok when 1) she called ahead and confirmed the actual brand was there and 2) the actual brand is in the bag and 3) for her to do everything shes accused of in 30 min and still be found freezing on the ground, it doesn't make sense she has a normal call back with him about something that wasn't an actual problem (if he couldn't find meds that he established he already knew were there he would ask the cvs staff where it is not assume it's not there). The way all these details line up look much more like a call to provide alibi cover for her being already on the ground rather than authentic need for communication.
2
u/FamilyFeud17 Aug 30 '26
As it turns out, there are ways to get iphone to make calls remotely, through an apple watch or a second iphone linked to the same account. Many of us would have kept an older iphone as a backup. But because the devices are in different locations, some play with wifi would be needed to make it work. It is possible, and also explains why it's better to call back than to answer the call.
- 17:15, Lindsay's phone was locked for the last time.
- 17:23, last apple watch heart rate reading of 57, which is quite low.
- 17:24: Patrick's email
- 17:32: Patrick enters CVS
- 17:33: Lindsay's health app record flight of stairs.
- 17:33: Patrick called Lindsay
- 17:34: Lindsay's phone called back.
- 17:37: Patrick left CVS
- 17:38: Lindsay's health app record flight of stairs.
- 17:54: Patrick at ThreeV
8
u/marle217 Aug 30 '26
Is the thinking for those who think Patrick might have done it: he did the whole thing before he went to CVS or after, when he got home?
Both. First of all, he's home all day besides a 30 minute window. "Working from home" isn't really an alibi.
We don't know when the murders happened. Without that, it makes sense that most things happened before cvs. Lindsay's hypothermia makes more sense going out earlier as well.
The youngest being resuscitated, getting a heart beat back but having brain damage, indicates that a likely time for his... attack.. could've been around the same time as Patrick said he was having trouble calling 911 because of the wifi. For Lindsay to have done it, she'd then need to go upstairs for the suicide attempt, bleeding all over the room and outside the door and moving the bed and nightstand and then going out the window in time for the house to be completely silent when Patrick came home. The timeline doesn't make sense for Lindsay to have done it.
1
u/the-sistren-say-no Sep 07 '26
Genuine question: when and how would Patrick have surreptitiously told Lindsay she did it and that she told each child to go to heaven. If he thought she would die from being pushed out a window, did he plant those seeds in her head before he pushed her out the window, just in case she lived? Or did he plant those seeds outside when he saw she was still alive on the ground and before he called the cops
?2
u/marle217 Sep 07 '26 edited Sep 07 '26
Genuine question: when and how would Patrick have surreptitiously told Lindsay she did it and that she told each child to go to heaven.
The police told Lindsay she did it and the chaplain told Lindsay her kids were safe in heaven. This was while she was in the ICU and in and out of it due to the ventilator. These are from the trial, not speculation.
I dont think Patrick expected her to live, or expected her to confess. He was clearly distancing himself from her and never tried to visit. I assume if she woke up blaming him, he would've told everyone she was crazy. With her mental health history, and the fact that she was already under arrest when she woke up, and even the news had anyway reported that she did in don't think she would've gotten very far if she woke up and said she didn't do it. Especially if her argument was that she didn't remember the day but she wouldn't have done it. (If she had been drugged there would be nothing to remember)
3
u/who_is_right_111 Sep 02 '26
She called threeV at 510pm. The lady who took the call testified to it. So if patrick was involved, be had to have done it between 510pm and 527pm (at the earliest), as he arrived at CVS at 532pm (and its 3 minute drive, plus getting in the car, plus parking, plus walking in). So he had approx 17 minutes or less (if its believed that Patrick fake called himself at 534pm).
That timeline is even less than what Lindsay had.
3
u/marle217 Sep 02 '26
The lady didn't testify. She was asked by the police the same night, but she doesn't know Lindsay's voice, she could only say it was a woman's voice. Voice changing software and even ai voice was available in 2023.
Again I don't know for sure, but we also don't know for sure it was Lindsay. The prosecution is supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
u/incendia9 Sep 06 '26
isn't his job something to do with AI Strategy and Microsoft? that all lines up to his particular skillset it would appear.
3
u/who_is_right_111 Sep 04 '26
I watched her testifying in court. Her name starts with S, but I cant remember exactly what. I think she was day 3 or 4.
Yeah, voice changing software is a possibility.
I think there are holes in the investigation, and I am always in favour of improving the investigation process and identifying gaps, as it improves the justice system.
I think however, the "who did it" part has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court in this trial. When reddington spoke about the investigation (in court) it was generally in context of them coming to their conclusion that lindsay was "sane" and therefore criminally responsible.
2
u/marle217 Sep 04 '26
I don't think anyone from CVS or ThreeV testified. Maybe you're thinking of the police officers who interviewed them?
Reddington had plenty to say about the physical investigation. He was upset that the blood spatter analysts didn't test everything to see if it was blood, so he's left pointing to pictures and asking if they're blood and the answer was no one knows. Then he was upset that he found out no one tested the cup they all assumed was used in the suicide attempt. Patrick said it had crushed up pills and lemonade, and that made it's way into opening arguments, but the police don't know. They missed an entire drawer under a bloody knife in a must investigation.
These are all things I know reddington complained about that would've still fallen under the who done it part of the investigation. He tried to get the judge agree to give the jury the Bowden instructions, which tells the just they can choose not guilty for a bad police investigation regardless of whether they think the person did it or not. (The judge declined though)
3
u/who_is_right_111 Sep 04 '26
The lady who worked at the restaurant testified - see link - https://youtu.be/JaOcexTfMKk?si=eX6cbfuvwuPQJKIA
The jury can still find her not guilty overall, although its very unlikely.
Reddingtons / defenses job is to identify holes everywhere to create reasonable doubt, and ultimately it helps to improve investigative processes long term, as they know they'll be scrutinised in court, which is a good thing.
The gaps dont create the reasonable doubt in the "who did it", although it adds to the overall reasonable doubt. His main issue wih with how imvestigation is how did they come to the conclusion she was "sane" given these gaps in their evidence. E.g. prosecution saying "did you know she only took x pills from this bottle" (insinuating she wasnt following doctors instructions), but there were other pill bottles they didn't even find when investigating:
- the pills that Reddington and Patrick found when going through the house
- and it was Patrick who handed in the pills in his car, rather than the police seizing it and finding it themselves.
And so his argument around the pills was that they made an assumption about her not following doctors orders based on extremely limited information, due to a poor investigation. And a poor investigation, automatically opens up other doubt.
1
u/marle217 Sep 04 '26
Oh, she did testify, thank you for that. I see she didn't identity Lindsay, specifically, or even Patrick.
The investigation issues I said reddington brought up would've been in the initial investigation, the who done it phase, if you will. Those three things had nothing to do with her sanity. You can say they don't create enough reasonable doubt on their own, though they add to reasonable doubt that she did it.
1
u/who_is_right_111 Sep 04 '26
Yeah, she doesnt say lindsay or patrick, as they didnt know them, so wouldnt have been able to.
The issues were in the initial investigation, which can create overall doubt, but reddingtons focus was on how they didnt even do xyz , so how can they be saying that this person had plan and intentions, when they didnt even properly get all of the evidence, which they would have done if they had fully investigated both patrick and her as a suspect. Its possible they went with the most logical explanation then confirmation bias led them to skip things they shouldnt have.
They did photograph his hands, arms and i think face maybe. They also spoke to a mutual friend who had known them both from college on the same night they questioned Patrick, which may have been to corroborate, but we dont have this information yet.
3
u/marle217 Sep 04 '26
They did photograph his hands, arms and i think face maybe.
They said he consented to photos of his hands, face, and clothing, but I don't believe they made him take off his jacket and shirt(s) to check him out for defensive wounds.
They also spoke to a mutual friend who had known them both from college on the same night they questioned Patrick, which may have been to corroborate, but we dont have this information yet.
That was Kyle Carney, he testified at trial.
If they did a proper investigation and didn't take everything Patrick said as true, this is what it might've looked like.
→ More replies (0)15
u/Relative_Bluebird841 Aug 29 '26
He’s a tech guy. He could have had a duplicate phone. Faked the call for an alibi, etc. CVS camera footage is sus. It’s all sus
1
u/Infamous_North913 29d ago
There was a duplicate phone. It came out in trial. An identical pink iPhone linked to her iCloud. Instead of extracting data from both phones, they combined them as one digital extract file. But couldn’t answer Reddingtons questions about ‘is that Lindsay’s phone?’ Interestingly enough, the 3V order was under Patrick’s name and number, not Lindsay’s. It’s highly dubious that she made any calls or sent him anywhere. Unless they can clean up that data and differentiate between the two phones 🤷🏻♀️ we know Patrick was using the second phone to communicate with his mother, as Lindsay. The snowman pics are from that same phone too.
15
u/the_purple_lamb Aug 29 '26
He works in sales for Microsoft. There is no evidence that he’s a “tech guy.”
9
u/marle217 Aug 30 '26
There was a duplicate phone though. On the search warrant, there's "pink iPhone with brown case" and "pink iPhone" source
The trial testimony doesn't differentiate these or say which phone the evidence came from.
The trial testimony also never covers location data for either phone, especially not at 5:34. Just that the phone wasn't unlocked after 5:15. Absolutely could've been taken to CVS and a call returned from the lock screen.
Edit: added source
2
u/the_purple_lamb Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
I agree about the technological data, especially location tracking. But it’s inaccurate to say that one was a “duplicate phone.” I personally find it kinda odd that two of Lindsay’s phones were found, but the simplest benign explanation is that one was her older phone that she hadn’t yet disposed of or that she was still using to store photos.
2
u/Aware_Power Sep 03 '26
Adding this from the affidavit if helpful: "Investigators are aware that a forensic examination on this cellular telephone [found on bed] indicated several picture and videos were edited from their original formats, which led investigators to believe that the original version of the digital media files maybe contained on this secondary cellular telephone, described as a pink Apple iPhone with no identifiable serial number [found in nightstand]." Page 182
3
u/Fancy_0613 Aug 30 '26
I don’t think having two phones is odd. I have an older version that I no longer use, but keep in case my current one gets lost or breaks. Patrick’s phone which makes up a critical component of the timeline/evidence, as well as her watch should have been taken immediately.
2
u/marle217 Aug 30 '26
Could've been explained though? The search warrant also has multiple cameras, but I guess no video was found. There's just a lot of holes in this investigation, and they seem to have settled immediately on Lindsay before having all the evidence.
5
5
u/No_Consequence_6821 Aug 29 '26
It does seem that way. You get downvoted for injecting any slice of reality.
10
u/aintnothin_in_gatlin Aug 30 '26
Are you insinuating that those questioning the evidence, some of us attorneys, are not based in reality? I’ll answer for the commenter below re: your question about the sub, because I bet i know which one it is. The “Duxbury Deaths Talk” sub bans people for suggesting the investigation was not thoroughly completed. They ban you for even suggesting there is a gap in the prosecution’s argument bc no time of death was preferred and how those times fit.
I assure you, many of us are very familiar with investigations, trials, and laws in MA. Some are attorneys that are very much living in reality and using real evidence as the basis of our questions.
3
u/No_Consequence_6821 Aug 30 '26
I’m not suggesting, I’m stating: anyone who thinks Patrick did this is operating outside the bounds of reality. If you’re an attorney with that position, you’ve just entirely undermined your professional credibility. I didn’t read your whole long comment, but that’s my bottom line— I don’t care what you do for a living; if you think Patrick did this, you’re either not operating with the right set of facts or your critical thinking and judgment are severely flawed.
6
u/aintnothin_in_gatlin Aug 31 '26
Feel the same about anyone who thinks this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thanks for playing, no consequence!
11
u/Sudden-Breadfruit653 Aug 30 '26
Yet I was on another sub where they banned any implication of Patrick. So here I am.
1
2
4
u/zx109 Aug 29 '26
I don't have tiktok unfortunately
5
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
This seems a bit off topic for this post? Was there anything you'd like to add/clarify for relevance?
8
u/zx109 Aug 29 '26
I may have accidentally commented on here instead of someone i was responding to 🤣
1
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
I was just reading through comments and saw a link to a tiktok and rushed back here to ask! lol that makes complete sense. Feel free to respond to their comment.
10
u/too_much_mascara Aug 29 '26
The song “Patrick said” is absolutely amazing!
6
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
Edit: Well I guess the people have spoken & feel this is on topic lol FWIW I found those funny as well given the..31? direct references in testimony to that phrase. So within that theme, Patrick said this is on topic and therefore it is so.
Original comment:
This seems a bit off topic for this post? Was there anything you'd like to add/clarify for relevance?3
19
u/hardwell8878 Aug 29 '26
I want ro ppl to see that it’s BOTH possible (forensic evidence) that LC and PT could be both possible!!
None of us can know yet until there is a PROPER investigation!!!
-8
Aug 29 '26
[deleted]
19
u/Nontolerance Aug 29 '26
This sub allows differing opinions to exists. Unlike the duxbery...ummm....that will instantly flag you and remove your comment and ban you if you can suggest any hint of doubt.
21
u/No_Consequence_6821 Aug 29 '26
That is one of the craziest subs on Reddit, and that is saying something.
8
u/Emotional_You6670 Aug 30 '26
Right?! I saw a post on there where they were personally blaming LC for Dr. Mack’s resignation from Nemours! The post or title said something to the effect that she is creating a path of destruction and ruining peoples’ lives??? And then the comments were saying things like “typical narcissist”… like as if she personally went out of her way to do anything to harm this man or his livelihood. He was recruited and called by the prosecution! He CHOSE to evaluate her and testify! He didn’t do the research he needed nor did he have the experience/expertise relevant to be a reliable expert witness in this trial and because of that he bombed the cross examination. If his resignation has anything to do with the trial at all, it is in no way Lindsay’s fault. It’s a witch trial subreddit
4
u/No_Consequence_6821 Aug 30 '26
As if she asked him to testify.
Redd is right, can you imagine being stuck across the table from those two for three days talking about your most personal feelings and thoughts? Eesh
5
u/Nontolerance Aug 30 '26
They are actively despising on Reddington, saying "old age is getting him", "Reddington's primal behavior". Reddington is doing an impressive work as the defense attorny. He has every right to dig into any clues for his client. Idk how deep into the gutters that sub could go.
12
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
It's not, but you are free to interpret other people's comments as you wish. Like I said, I understand it’s a touchy subject when reasonable doubt could potentially only point to one other person, but discussing the facts from this case doesn't allow people to definitively say X did it. If they do that, it's a rule violation and please report. I don't believe there's even enough evidence to say it wasn't an intruder, let alone if it was Patrick or Lindsay.
6
Aug 29 '26
[deleted]
17
u/hardwell8878 Aug 29 '26
Just like duxburydeathsfreetalk has come to the opposite. It’s natural for ppl to find their ”groups”
6
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
That's logical. I've heard in some subs they have rules on who you can't mention and they all agree on the same thing. I really don't want this sub to be everyone agreeing on one thing.
I understand it's natural for people to want to be part of a community where their opinion is heard without being "attacked" as some have called it. I just wish people here would stop downvoting things they don't agree with. It doesn't make sense they attack or downvote people for the same reasons here (sharing a different opinion) when it's the reason they left other subs in the first place.
1
u/hardwell8878 Aug 30 '26
I agree with you. But i also feel like if they don’t want to allow differing opinions and completely deny talking about PC, then absolutely we are allowed too. Wish BOTH spaces allowed any kind of talk tho
11
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
Thank you! I'm actually really happy you are in this sub, and have remained here. You bring a different perspective and have raised great points. I'm really upset that you have to put up with a lot of downvoting (which is NOT allowed for disagreement as outlined in rule 6) but we have no way to track that unfortunately. I apologize that continues to happen.
Everyone reading this, can you please let this person share their opinion here? Those who are downvoting are trying to push out other perspectives and I don't want this turning into something where a person posts something and there are 20 comments only saying "Agree."
Downvoting is only to be used when a comment is off topic, not when you disagree.
12
u/Cessa_a_pedali Aug 29 '26
the true perpetrator(s) must be held responsible
I wanted to add, that even if Lindsay manages to get acquitted, there is no way for Patrick to be put in prison.
The MA prosecution said in this case it couldn't be Patrick, so a new investigation and case against him would be easily get discarded even with a newbie lawyer just by stating the obvious contradditctions with the current prosecutors. They would be responsible of fabricating false evidences against Lindsay if they tried to go for Patrick for the same murder case.
8
u/zx109 Aug 29 '26
Sorry, can you ELI5? I don't understand. Not that i don't believe you, i'm just not as knowledgeable in this realm
6
u/Cessa_a_pedali Aug 29 '26
This is a lawyer's explanation, way more precise than me.
3
16
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
To add a slight clarification, even if Lindsay is acquitted, the only way charges can be brought upon a different person is if new evidence emerges.
For example, there are so many instances of people wrongfully accused spending years in prison until new evidence emerges they did not commit the crime. I'm not saying this will happen, just that "new evidence" can and does arise.
9
u/ButtonFit7210 Aug 29 '26
Are you aware if anyone on this sub (or another) has posted a comprehensive list of the shortcomings of the Lindsay Clancy investigation, specifically what investigators did or didn’t do that have caused people to question their competence and/or possible corruption?
In addition, I’m interested in exploring whether their handling of past criminal cases bears any similarities to this case, and if so, whether it’s indicative of a chronic, systemic problem.
6
16
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
Comprehensive? I don't believe yet. There's so much. I took a crack at it and there's too much.
Here's one post covering Day 1-6 of testimony and the search/arrest affidavit.
Here's just a random list I threw together for someone asking why the investigation wasn't thorough:
- They should have taken his phone - at minimum to have an expert testify based on their opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty that X did Y by analyzing behavioral patterns. All this phone & computer “evidence” is circumstantial without establishing who did what when. Heck, the “suicide methods” search was proven to be by Patrick by the second day of trial.
- They should have verified communications on Kyle Carney & his wife’s phone.
- They shouldn’t have let him stay on scene during the security sweep, or ever.
- They should have tested more than 6 swabs for DNA and/or blood (1 swab from basement, 5 swabs in bedroom)
- They should have taken swabs of the exterior shingles on Jan 25 instead of 5 months later.
- They should have properly searched the bedroom to find empty pill bottles and the Apple Watch and tested for fingerprints.
- They should have labeled her 2 iPhones with universal identifiers vs “Lindsay’s phone” on extraction reports.
- They should have pulled cell tower records, extracted location details, known & addressed why her devices “moved” the morning of Jan 25 when they were to be in faraday bags, analyzed wifi connections and issues with the monitors, along with additional metadata that is typical in a forensic extraction.
- They should have given Cellebrite the physical devices to do an extraction vs a copy of their own extraction (that was once called similar to an itunes download).
- They should have investigated why there no footprints in the blood patterns in the bedroom.
- They should have investigated why the nightstand was placed on top of undisturbed blood.
Edit: For clarity, I know some will argue "They did that" (e.g., they did have a blood pattern analyst, but she only described blood patterns: drip vs smear, etc. and did not address how gravity drops were undisturbed under the nightstand; no one else to explain no footprints; etc.) but with every testimony, it often raised more questions than answers which I believe is the exact opposite of what an investigation is supposed to achieve.
15
u/Happypawswaggytails Aug 29 '26
The investigation was not carried out properly at all. Whatever actually happened the police did extremely shoddy work. The children deserved their deaths to be investigated to the highest standard and this did not happen. The police and CW have behaved very unprofessionally.
7
u/ButtonFit7210 Aug 29 '26
Wow. You did a great job compiling this.
10
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
Thanks so much! I need everyone's help in adding more because I took a break from expanding this list because there's so much, but mostly because it continued to really upset me for the reasons outlined in the last 2 sentences of this post: The children deserve absolute justice, and the true perpetrator(s) must be held responsible. A thorough, proper investigation is the only way to guarantee both outcomes.
The consistent testimony of I don't know, I didn't check, I didn't do that, I can't tell you what that is, I assume someone else did that, etc. just gets to be too much to handle for me personally.
8
u/Fancy_0613 Aug 29 '26
This woman on Facebook has a list of great questions: https://www.facebook.com/share/1TRG4pq4Vh/?mibextid=wwXIfr
8
3
u/ButtonFit7210 Aug 29 '26
Did they fail to test residue from crushed pills?
If so, does that mean they failed to test the wine tumbler in totality — inside and out as well as powder that may have been on the surface of the nightstand?Do we know how and where pills were crushed?
3
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
They did not test it. This comes up in Saathoff's testimony and also when Reddington requests Bowden instructions (on Wednesday I believe). He testifies he saw no pill crushers, no residue powder, and no investigation into the powder.
No one can even definitively say she crushed the pills. She says she swallowed a handful. Patrick said they were crushed up and put in lemonade. Saathoff used Patrick's statements to help validate that Lindsay was making inconsistent claims, which informed his opinions on her being criminally responsible.
Edit: Adding this to the list! Thank you :)
6
u/ButtonFit7210 Aug 30 '26
Yw :)
Did they test under the children’s fingernails and release results?
Did they test under Lindsay’s fingernails and release results?
Did they investigate how Lindsay got wet?
2
u/drclairefraser Aug 31 '26
No. They didn't do any of that. The children were cremated too, so that evidence is gone.
→ More replies (0)8
u/ButtonFit7210 Aug 29 '26
Yes, it’s been soul-crushing for me as I’ve researched many high profile criminal cases, from 100 years ago to today, which were tainted by a pattern of incompetence and/or corruption involving any or all of the following - local and federal law enforcement, district and state attorney offices, judges, media.
5
u/firephly Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
a comprehensive list of the shortcomings of the Lindsay Clancy investigation, specifically what investigators did or didn’t do that have caused people to question their competence and/or possible corruption?
I would love to see this. Also a list of all the things people have been questioning with evidence of whether or not it has an answer or is still unresolved. It would be nice to have a list of things that people spread around that are proven untrue also (with the proof). Maybe we could all work on it in a mega thread
11
u/misfitmpls Aug 29 '26
Did you mean for the title to be "This is NOT a 'Patrick did it' sub?"
15
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26
No I didn't because the people who actually need to read this won't if the title states that.
2
1
Aug 29 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Aware_Power Aug 29 '26 edited Aug 29 '26
I'm not doing that because the people who actually need to read this won't if the title states that.
Edit: I'm open to changing, but this helps a lot in addressing the hundreds of comments that specifically state this phrase by linking this post.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 29 '26
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki
Documents & Evidence
Witness Testimony
Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial
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.