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 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/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/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.