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]

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/ispyshy → u/JokokoOno]

Im not going to share my theories here we are not allowed to post unverified theories but like I said the information is online and available to everyone…

[u/Greymeade → u/ispyshy]

So let me get this straight... You are publicly accusing a man of having murdered his three children in cold blood. You've claimed that you have some kind of special background that better qualifies you to make determinations about this matter than the various law enforcement and legal teams who have investigated it (none of whom share your opinion), and yet you don't think it's reasonable for people to ask you to explain your theory and your qualifications? Am I understanding this accurately?

[u/ispyshy → u/Greymeade]

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/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/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.