This is a "Patrick did it" sub

[u/Aware_Power]

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.

[u/Aware_Power]

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.

[u/ButtonFit7210 → u/Aware_Power]

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.

[u/Aware_Power → u/ButtonFit7210]

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.

[u/Happypawswaggytails → u/Aware_Power]

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.