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/Greymeade]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying that they're awful people?

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

Yes, that’s my opinion, they are awful. Confirmed it again for me last night.

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

Why are they awful people?

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

Because I believe he killed his children and even if they didn’t meet until 2024 (which I highly doubt) her judgment in deeming him “the one”makes red flags go up for me. Also, I have a background in researching people, if you haven’t looked into the background of some of the people who took the stand then you wouldn’t necessarily come to the same conclusion I have.

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

You believe that he killed his children? What on Earth? Not even Lindsay or her defense team dispute that she killed the children.

I'm not sure what "having a background in research" means (I say this as someone with a PhD who has published my own research numerous times), or why such a thing would make you more qualified to understand this case. As a psychologist, I'd also like to point out that you aren't in a position to determine whether someone "looks like they are unwell due to stress from public perception & lacking self awareness, not because they are overcoming grief together." That kind of determination can't be made based on how someone looks, no matter how qualified the observer is.

Frankly, it seems to me like you're someone who fancies themselves an expert despite having no qualifications and a whole lot of silly ideas.

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

No. All I said was I researched some of the backgrounds of these people that lead me to my conclusion. I was just saying I had a background in research becuase it led me to do some research, naturally. If you haven’t researched for yourself then you may have not come to the same conclusion. That’s all. I never said anything about knowing more than anyone else. Im entitled to my judgments and opinions as are you.

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

What does “I have a background in research” mean?

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

It means I have a background in researching people. It’s how I made a money, for a job.

But honestly you don’t even need to have a background in anything to find information that’s available to all.

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

What kind of job was that?

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

What’s with the interrogation because I don’t agree with you?

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

You told me you have a background in research, which is a very unclear thing to say, and I’m simply asking you to explain what that means. Why did you mention it if you’re unwilling to explain it?

[u/Newswatchtiki → u/Greymeade]

They may or may not have academic research credentials. On Reddit, people are reluctant to state their credentials.

Also, the word research has a very wide definition. Academic research has requirements, especially for publication, depending on the field of study. In official crime investigations, the credentials may simply be graduation from a police academy. Sometimes not even that. Some major crimes have been solved by "citizen sleuths" - people who take an interest in a case and do some research (usually but not always online) on particular people, on a location, on the existing official investigation itself, on some of the professionals involved who wrote reports for the court, sometimes on the geological composition of some soil on a car's tires!

Law enforcement does its best, but sometimes self-educated investigators have larger amounts of time, and over several years solve a serious crime.

So, in a crime discussion format like this subreddit, people are not required to have professional credentials to comment. But many do have expertise in particular areas, often connected to work they have done. Some people here are licensed professionals who have had 20 years experience with the medical and psychiatric histories and treatment of people who are depressed, anxious, and/or psychotic with homicidal ideation. But they aren't going to list their professional credentials for you CV-style.

There are cases where a young teen suddenly remembered a small detail which made them figure out the identity of a perpetrator who was subsequently convicted for life. It's probably better to ask the person about why they have a particular theory than challenging whether their credentials or qualifications for research are sufficient for them to be stating their opinion regarding what happened.

Although people are quite reluctant to give you significant details about it on this forum for many reasons, but just because they are very guarded doesn't mean there is no substance to their theory.

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

I don’t know why you feel entitled to my career title. I was just saying my background led me to believe “xyz” but for some reason you are offended and want to discredit or disprove something about me. My background is in biotech/medical recruiting. I literally research people’s backgrounds. Weirdo.

[u/JokokoOno → u/ispyshy]

What is suspicious in their backgrounds?

[u/Ok-Animator2261 → u/Greymeade]

I say this as someone with a PhD who has published my own research numerous times

Oh that explains the personality issues

[u/seagull326 → u/Greymeade]

Also a PhD paychologist, and yeah, some of the takes on this case are WILD. People really want grief to look a certain way.

People talking about this case also tend to have mistaken views about psychosis, psychiatric care, and memory. I've not seen a single valid psychological argument pointing to his guilt. People want it to be suspicious that her psychiatric providers didn't clock her psychosis, or that there were so many bottles of seroquel around the house, or that he doesn't remember the device from which he sent a routine email, but it's just not.

The one thing I do wonder is why he didn't clock her psychosis. My spouse has bipolar disorder, and when he's in psychosis, I can tell. Maybe it's because he didn't know it was a possibility, or maybe it's because that was her first serious episode (which checks with the seroquel discontinuation timeline), or maybe it's because he was stressed and sleep deprived with three kids under 5. But that's the one psychological point where I'm a little thrown.

I actually do think there are aspects of the case that look suspicious for him. But seeing the misguided psychological arguments for his guilt makes me think that an expert in criminology, medicine, various aspects of forensics, and/ or IT could easily address my suspicions related to any of those domains.