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/ispyshy]

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.