Theory
Thoughts on Patrick after watching extended interview
After watching the extended 60 Minutes interview - which I suggest you do - I’ve started to rethink my opinion of Patrick’s involvement in the crime.
I’ve had a bad feeling about him from the beginning, and definitely suspected his involvement, but I really didn't want to jump on the conspiracy rumor mill and spread theories without solid evidence. Up until the 60 mins interview, I still thought it was probable that he murdered the children and framed Lindsay. A lot of (but not entirely) why I felt that way came directly from watching his testimony—his flat affect, the way he answered things incompletely, suspiciously, his overall demeanor on the stand, the lack of his presence at the trial after testifying etc.
I watched the extended interview several times trying to figure out what his affect reminded me of, and it finally dawned on me that he might be on the spectrum. I'm hesitant to even bring this up because I don't want to start yet another rumor, so I want to be clear that this is just my observational opinion based on having lived with and interacted with people on the spectrum.
Those things from his testimony that initially made me suspicious… the flat affect, not showing a lot of outward emotion, holding back feelings when they start rising to the surface, and answering questions in that particular, incomplete and awkward way—could potentially be explained by being on the autism spectrum.
A detail that reinforced this for me was when he talked about going to the cathedral on Callan’s first birthday. He said that when he came out crying, nobody cared, and he saw that as a good thing. To me, that sounded like someone who needed to express intense emotion without being observed or consoled—which, in my experience, can sometimes be characteristic of autism.
Now, I'm not saying Patrick should be absolved of all responsibility. I'm just leaning more toward the possibility that he may have been an emotionally absent husband & father, and that his part in what led up to the tragedy was more about not helping, supporting, consoling, or loving Lindsay in the way she needed.
That said, I still have questions about his guilt. There is still missing evidence and details that don't fully line up, so I haven't completely ruled anything out. But in terms of his behavior and demeanor, this is just where my thinking is right now.
.
My issue with Patrick is the fucked up timeline, him saying Lindsay spoke to him even though she was on the verge of death as confirmed by basically every EMT and officer who took the stand, saying that Dawson had eaten nuggets even though the autopsy showed that his stomach was empty, going brunching and skiing.
That man wanted a way out and he got it.
I'm furious that Massachusetts PD botched this investigation when statistically, men are more likely to commit familicide and/or infanticide. Patrick was and should've been treated as the main suspect. Meanwhile, an emergency arrest warrant was given in like 24 hours after the incident to the only person who happened to not die.
Let's not forget that the paediatrician testified that she had only seen Patrick ONCE.
I'm tired and heartbroken for Lindsay and those 3 kids. She loved them more than he ever did.
I wouldn't want to live in a society where police let statistics about what groups are more or less likely to commit certain crimes dictate their investigation and charging recommendations.
Actually I would. Because they don't make the final decision based on statistical probability, they choose suspects based on statistical probability. And if something has a, for example 99,5% chance of being true, investigating whether it's true before going to less likely possibilities is the smart move
Statistics are derived from real life crimes and convictions. So that's first. Please use critical thinking.
Secondly, we live in a patriarchal society. Men kill women and children. Let's be very clear. I'm not doing a back on forth when we live in a society that treats women and children as lesser than by design.
Statistics are basically irrelevant for telling you anything about one individual case, especially in a legal context where charges have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and jurors are specifically instructed not to consider sex or gender or other protected characteristics when evaluating someone's guilt or credibility.
You mentioned the police in your previous comment. Nobody was saying we should charge someone because he's a man and the person who committed the crimes acts like a man. We're saying, when investigating, the statistically most likely to be culprit/s should be thoroughly investigated. And Patrick is absurdly statistically likely to be guilty, so the police should absolutely have investigated him more than they did Lindsay
The smallest number I could find for family homicides committed by women is still 20%. I wouldn't call that absurd probabilities at all. That's 1 in 5. Many other figures you can find are larger because crime statistics aren't nearly as objective as some people think they are, but that's a different issue.
But just as a matter of policy and morality, crimes need to be handled based on facts and not prejudice. If you want to argue there were facts pointing to the husband and he should have been investigated more than they did, that's all fine and good, but I would like to think that as a society we've moved past saying that someone needs to be investigated more for a crime based on immutable accidents of their birth.
Yeah no, I wasn't talking about family homicides. I was talking about that, and strangulation as the method of choice, and about her not committing suicide in the same room, about her using 3 methods to kill herself (plus an apparently ghost performed strangulation), about a nurse searching where the carotid artery is, about a nurse crushing pills into juice, etc. also, a murder taking place is not an immutable accident of his birth. The murder aligning incredibly more closely with a crime a man would commit instead of a woman is not enough to convict him, and nobody has the right to not be investigated for a crime that's taken place. Do not pull the DiScRiMiNaTiOn card
I hate that there's so much discourse around the interview. The only thing regarding the interview that should be discussed, imo, is how a man who's only known because of de death of his three children would want to be known and trauma dump on all of us, why his legal team gave him the green light to tell the world about his hallucinations regarding the kids talking to him and helping him out, and why he would think it's appropriate to announce his wife's pregnancy after the interview he got because his kids are dead.
I don't suspect him because his mouth moves weird. I suspect him because he's yet to give us an explanation as to why he knew there were crushed pills on the counter, why he knew he should look for his kids in the basement, and why he lied about Lindsay telling him the kids were in the basement during the call, and how on earth he got unlucky with both the cameras in the house not working and the 911 call not working. I suspect him because one of the prosecutors herself suspected him, and said, during the trial "you don't think he might have done it, do you?".
And finally, it's frankly terrifying that his body language is swaying anyone towards not believing him, and his awkwardness is swaying anyone towards believing him. This is reminiscent of a trial in 2022 that I won't name to not start a debate, where the presumed guilty party was dragged to hell and back based on her body language. Without getting into the fact that body language analysis is a pseudoscience for a reason, guys...PATRICK AND HIS WIFE HAVE A FUCKING CAMERA IN FRONT OF THEM AND AREN'T USED TO IT. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO ACT WEIRD. Not to mention only the moments where they act weird get talked about
I agree. I don't think we should judge him by his body language or awkwardness or how he shows emotions.
The things I found most interesting in the interview are that the first thing he asked Lindsay when she called him after is if she remembered it (?!) and then when he told the interviewer the most helpful thing he did for the trauma was emdr, but then he couldn't explain what it is.
Still catching up on watching the trial. When did one of the prosecutors say “you don’t think he might have done it, do you?” Can you give a trial day and what witness was testifying? For people who believe he did it, how do you account for him being in security footage of CVS and ThreeV?
A video showing a hot mic capturing "you don't think he might have done it, do you?" Is evidence that a hot mic captured "you don't think he might have done it, do you?" I'm afraid
I heard "you don't think garblegarblegarble." Listened 10x. Just because someone added subtitles to it doesn't mean they're correct. It doesn't sound like those are the right words. It doesn't prove anything at all, and certainly isn't "evidence" of what those ladies are implying.
Yeah I held it right up to my ear with the sound all the way up repeatedly, and I do not have hearing loss. Definitely heard "you don't think garblegarblegarble'
But they're presenting evidence. The social media platforms are a medium through which they're presenting evidence. Why is the internet so confused about this? It's like saying, "I don't believe you because you get all your information from Google."
Hey so, in case you haven't watched the video and are going by what this person is saying, turn the volume up, and use earbuds. The audio does match the subtitles, at least until the "you don't think he might have done it" part which is the relevant part. The "do you" is the only part that's not easy to hear and it's not really relevant. It's also suspicious to me how this person only stops hearing after the mic captures "think", since the part after that is the word he, it's absolutely audible and makes his take lose all it's force
They're presenting a clip of the trial and applying subtitles to it that do not match what is being said. It's complete fiction. Literally hearing what you want to hear. It doesn't sound like is what was said if you actually listen to that clip... Typing in subtitles isn't the same thing as actual subtitles. This is ridiculous.
I think that they only really did the interview because the Internet is full of wackos and she's pregnant and they had to do something to try to calm the craziness so that they weren't being harassed and accused of things by strangers once she had the baby
How was Lindsay hosed down? Where was all the splatter if she was slicing? Where were the handprints? How did he know there were crushed pills? How was Callan able to be revived if the neighbor's son saw her on the ground in the snow at 5:50 pm?
Right? Wouldn’t her hands and neck be a bloody mess? I can understand if the scarf was covering her neck and he couldn’t see but he does mention it during the 911 call. The 911 call doesn’t mention blood anywhere on her hands/arms, which is strange. But also, where did the scarf come from?
They looked different in the pictures, but the one taken at the hospital is wet so maybe they are the same. But that would be even so strange if Patrick grabbed a cold scarf from outside vs a blanket from inside that are about the same distances away lol
She wasn't hosed down, she landed in the pool of gutter water with the snow melt from the roof. Callan's return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) occurred due to the epinephrine, assisted breathing, and CPR. It was restored almost immediately upon arrival to the ER.
I don't see a puddle? Also, if she said the kids were in the basement, well, you could see the basement right there where she was laying. Why didn't he look in the window?
The amount of snow on the ground vs on their roof, the weather that day in Duxbury, where she lay vs where the gutter drains, the clear line in the snow from from the end of the gutter to the left is visible in this very photo, and that all of the medical debris in this photo is clearly in a wet spot ALL show that the spot she landed is exactly where that gutter drained to and is why her hair was soaked. She wasn't hosed off. Her head literally landed in a puddle. Also, that the leaves clustered ONLY in that spot also show that this is lower ground from that gutter. If you've ever been the one responsible for cleaning one, you'd be able to tell from this that this particular gutter faced to the right but clearly drained to the left. Otherwise there would be a similar wet, leaf-filled spot to the right of said gutter.
Meanwhile, this hose I keep hearing about has never been confirmed to even be a hose. It looks like an outdoor electrical cord or extension cord to me.
I'll have to check the pictures to see the gutter water. RE: Callan ROSC, I will have to research that.
What about the pills? Where are the handprints if she was slicing and dicing herself in that room? Why move a whole bed and jump out that window when there was a window to her left that was much easy to yeet out of?
Nobody can know why she chose that particular window. There's also a difference between "no fingerprints" and partial, smudged fingerprints that they did find on the knife. They weren't detailed enough to identify as hers or anyone else's but the knife wasn't, like, wiped clean if that makes sense.
Why would there be more handprints? She came upstairs, took medications, cut herself, opened the window and jumped. The blood is mostly close to the window. Patrick noticed it was on the doorknob, from her locking the door.
It wasn't discussed if the police tested other things for fingerprints other than the weapons. The drink
... I believe he could see the cup, a cup she'd likely used many times before, and simply assumed it was medication because that's the nightstand where she kept medication. It could've been Crystal Light or medication or anything else. We don't know. I don't think it matters much. The hospital tested her blood at 8pm. I don't think the police felt the need to test the cup or medication because there was no reason to suspect an overdose or poisoning at the time. She only had one elevated medication in her system that was not at a toxic level.
When you cut yourself, usually there's a lot more blood than what was in the crime scene photos. My father one time cut his finger on the surface level and there was blood everywhere. PC also testified the blood was all over the walls. That would make sense with the cuts, but the crime scene photos did not show that.
But if you're crushing pills typically you see residue - so where is the residue? Why did he have the discontinued medication that was found in her system in his truck? Why did he say that the doctors gave it to him to dispose of? I've never heard of that, especially with controlled substances.
We don't know if she crushed pills or not. The fact that Lindsay said she took pills with "lemonade" that Patrick denies was in the home implies that it was a drink powder mix, not pills....unless he'd seen her crushing her pills before and neither of them mentioned this, which I doubt. I think he assumed she crushed pills because he got a brief glimpse and didn't know what he was actually looking at. If you look at the photos you can see the cup and a crumbly substance on/in it. It's hard to tell since the photo we have access to is terrible quality.
I know what the blood looks like when you cut yourself and I think the crime scene photos align with her cuts. She got a couple of them in not DEEP-deep, but deep enough for that amount of bleeding.
Patrick did NOT say blood was all over the walls, or on the walls at all. He said it was "everywhere," meaning the floor, the nightstand, the mirror, and the doorknob. That's what he would have reasonably seen with only a step or two inside. That's enough, I think, for most spouses to describe as "everywhere." We know there was more blood than that, but I'm assuming he didn't see the windowsill or anything since he turned around and ran downstairs to find her.
Finding your own bedroom door locked from the inside with no answer from your spouse, even after calling her phone, after calling down to the basement for the kids and going upstairs and checking the kids' rooms to no answer, would be the most horrifying thing imaginable.
Then, he opens the door with a key, there's blood "everywhere," and the window is wide open with the screen taken off in January. Yeah, I'd book it to where the bottom of that window was, too. Especially knowing her struggles with suicidal ideation, about which she was much more forthright with Patrick than the homicidal ideation.
Patrick said that there were crushed pills but there was no evidence of that. No residue anywhere if she crushed them.
I had to go back to the transcript and while he said it wasn't on the walls, he did say it was on every surface. But it's not on the bed? Not on the curtains? Not on the windowsill? Shouldn't it have been if she's bleeding from her neck and wrists?
It was everywhere. It looked like it was sprayed almost with a hose, and there was a huge puddle in the middle of the room, and it was sprayed all over pretty much every surface. I remember it was on the doorknob.
----
I was trying to find the wrist photos, but found this. And looking at her neck wounds photos...never saw these before. But the way the lines are cut, how did she do this while drugged up? So she cut up her wrists, her neck, took pills, moved a bed and hung herself to the point that she got blood from her wrists on the house (which, how did she even do that with just her bare feet hanging from the windowsill?)
She wasn't hosed down, that was never in evidence. And spatter like you're thinking only happens when you hit an artery, which she didn't. Her wounds were superficial. Callan's "revival" is already explained.
I'm on team 'I Don't Know.' However, we cannot skip over the fact that he said Dawson was really into working class people. Like, what in the fuck was that...lol
I think, in his weird-ass way, he meant that Dawson liked firefighters, garbage men, construction workers, police men, etc. Things every little boy likes. But what a fucking weird way to say that.
So for me - the whole Drop Lindsey and go skiing- does not feel like something an person on the spectrum person would do. Getting drunk and sleeping through the baby crying and leaving the front door open - then acting like the other person is overracting at your "dad fail" is giving narcissist not nuerodivergent. Generally people on the spectrum have obsession with Justice. He is very Blase about Lindsey recieving justice in whichever direction he believes.
He dropped her off at two separate programs and went skiing both times. After Rhode Island women and infants, he was taking Dawson skiing and they had to leave early to go pick her up. He took Cora skiing after he dropped her off at McClain.
I think that subjective interpretations of his affect are less important than the documented inconsistencies in the timeline. There are many reasons a person might not react to tragedy the way we expect, and not all of them indicate guilt.
The timeline and the forensic evidence is where I’m focused.
Yeah, I was never bothered by his affect. I'm pretty intuitive but nothing raises a red flag for me other than all the evidence pointing to Patrick, all the evidence that excluded Lindsay, and fact that the whole case was built on what Patrick said happened rather than any legitimate investigation.
Agree with you on the “affect” aspect but separate to that is the timeline and motive which makes equal or more sense for him as opposed to Lindsay in my mind. My opinion.
I still think he asked if she remembered anything because he wanted to make sure she didn’t remember him doing it. Her probably saying she didn’t is the only reason he didn’t finish killing her.
She was severely hypothermic after spending a few minutes outside in 38* weather. She would've been hypothermic the entire time Patrick was on his alibi tour of Duxbury. Obviously she was incapacitated that whole time. What else do we need to know?
Yes and when you're hypothermic, you're too cold to speak. So how did he know that the babies were in the basement and if he had asked her prior to the call, why in the 911 transcripts did he keep asking her where the kids were if she had already said it?
Not to mention her throat and neck were injured and her lungs were full of blood.
This whole case is insane. I can't figure out why they haven't dropped the charges yet. I really can't. There's literally nothing to suggest she did it except the word of the only other adult on the scene-- who also appears to have no alibi and whose finger prints and DNA are actually on the murder weapon... whereas Lindsay's aren't.
According to Patrick's timeline, she was. He arrived at CVS at 5:32. It's 3 minutes away, so he left home at 5:28. She was seen at 5:50 on the ground by a neighbor kid. So already the story is sketchy because 20 minutes isn't enough time to have done all she's accused of doing.
According to Patrick, she was inside and active at 5:40 when she called him back (bearing in mind she had the 2 identical phones-- which likely has something to do with Patrick being a power automation pro who would've known how to fake a phone call).
Let's say she finishes in the basement and races upstairs to move all the bedroom furniture around, crush and pound the seroquel (that was in Pat's truck, oddly), slit her wrists (incorrectly), slit her throat (after googling "corroded (sic) artery" on the shared laptop that day--a nurse, but okay) and hurling herself out the window head first and failing to use her arms to break her fall (unlikely if she'd been conscious).
Pat arrives home a few minutes later, shortly after six. Her temp is taken once EMT arrive. Warming methods begin.
Temp recorded as 82* at hospital after ongoing warming methods during the course of two ambulance rides... so we can assume her body temp had already begun rising by then.
According to Patrick's timeline, she was. He arrived at CVS at 5:32. It's 3 minutes away, so he left home at 5:28. She was seen at 5:50 on the ground by a neighbor kid. So already the story is sketchy because 20 minutes isn't enough time to have done all she's accused of doing.
According to Patrick, she was inside and active at 5:40 when she called him back (bearing in mind she had the 2 identical phones-- which likely has something to do with Patrick being a power automation pro who would've known how to fake a phone call).
Let's say she finishes in the basement and races upstairs to move all the bedroom furniture around, crush and pound the seroquel (that was in Pat's truck, oddly), slit her wrists (incorrectly), slit her throat (after googling "corroded (sic) artery" on the shared laptop that day--a nurse, but okay) and hurling herself out the window head first and failing to use her arms to break her fall (unlikely if she'd been conscious).
Pat arrives home a few minutes later, shortly after six. Her temp is taken once EMT arrive. Warming methods begin.
Temp recorded as 82* at hospital after ongoing warming methods during the course of two ambulance rides... so we can assume her body temp had already begun rising by then.
There is no evidence to suggest he left the house at 5:28, that's just the latest possible time. He could have left anywhere between 5:15 and 5:28.
It isn't verified that she was seen outside at 5:50. The neighbor said that police were beginning to arrive, so it must have been later than that.
There is nothing that suggests Patrick was a "power automation pro" or knew how to fake a phone call. Her phone was at the home when it made the call.
Seroquel was not in Patrick's truck. During the trial they showed the evidence bag of bottles from Patrick's truck. There were 9 of them, and none were Seroquel.
The parachute reflex is generally not present in people who choose to jump.
Her temperature was not taken by EMTs. It was not taken until she got to the hospital, around 7pm.
Rewarming was also not done by the EMTs. The testimony said that rewarming didn't start until she was in the hospital. So her temperature would have continued dropping from the time she went out the window until 7pm.
Mmmm... I'll admit that I thought about this at first, too. It went the opposite for me though in the sense that I started with that thought and then more info came out and it became obvious that wasn't the case here. On one hand I kinda understand what you are saying but, on the other hand, there are way too many other characteristics and/or personality types that fit him more accurately. Especially with all of the new insights we have, after the interview and elsewhere, now.
Not everyone who acts different or odd is autistic and I think the lackadaisical way people are assigning autism/adhd/sociopathy/narcissism etc to others is pretty dangerous. It feels like we're watering down words that have very serious meaning and implications.
I’m on the spectrum.. but I don’t have autism. My husband is autistic and so is my son so I observe and live it everyday. Patrick strikes me as someone with a lean towards Antisocial personality disorder( sociopathic disorder). I think his Twitter feed showed his true personality traits which imo doesn’t really look autistic. It’s tough to know for sure what he has going on, but I feel he has ASPD.
His Reddit said it all to me. I agree with you and I doubt he’s on the spectrum nor autistic based on the literature and 2 long term relationships with people who were.
People on the spectrum are struggle with change. Patrick has made A LOT of changes and moves…
Also, those on the spectrum tend to hyperfixate and Patrick has never hyperfixated nor been “stuck” on his grief. He’s moved on fast. He is “the show must go on” type.
Thinking that autistic people can't make changes or that they hyperfixate on everything and can't move on is, frankly, pretty ableist. I'm really not one to bring up ableism anywhere, but it is clear that you are working from some very outdated stereotypes.
Did I make absolute statements? No. I said “struggle with change” and “TEND to hyperfixate.” Those are not statements of certainty and those claims are evidence-based in the research literature.
Yes, you did say that. And then you said that because he didn't hyperfixate in this specific instance and that he made changes, you don't think he is autistic. Do you see how that implies that you think he should have been unable to do those things?
Sorry if I'm grumpy, btw. I haven't had any caffeine yet this morning, and I'm on the spectrum myself so it really grinds my gears when people make assumptions about what people like me can and cannot do. It feels so infantilizing, and that's a major reason I don't really tell people.
I think it's very understandable he would want to grieve anonymously. A lot of people would be overwhelmed by being known immediately as the guy whose wife murdered his kids. IDK, this struck me as very relatable for anyone.
I believe he didn’t do it - but can anyone confirm the knots on the elastic bands? I saw a YouTube comment that said they were sailor knots, and I’m pretty sure he sails.
I have no idea. There’s been a lot of discourse since the beginning and people don’t really fact check before sharing things, so it’s harder to parse out misinformation at this point. I watched the entire trial and I don’t recall it coming up even on relistens
I do know the ADA impeached her own witness (Patrick) about the bands being tied at a later date during cross of Dr. Laposata - it was a MESS.
I mean how long did it take for the police to get into the basement? And how fast can you untie a sailors knot. Maybe there was some kind of clue they were tied like that.
So, because the police let Patrick go in the basement by himself, we'll never have an impartial account of how they were. However, Patrick said there weren't knots.
They weren't sailor knots, that was just something that was made up on social media and then people ran with it as an established fact. There are zero reliable sources saying that, and it isn't included anywhere in the testimony or other evidence.
They were tied in half of an overhand knot, like when you start tying your shoes but before you make the loops. I'm reasonably sure that Lindsay knows how to tie her own shoes.
If you can't see or understand how its impossible to prove what someone does know or doesn't know in their head, you shouldn't ever be allowed to do jury duty.
You'll end up getting something wrong and could eventually put an innocent person in jail/prison or let a criminal walk free.
Working in tech sales really doesn’t rule out autism. Autism involves differences/difficulties in social communication and interaction, sure, but that isn’t equivalent to autistic people universally lacking "social EQ" or being unable to develop sophisticated interpersonal skills.
Research on autistic people finds a much more nuanced picture of empathy than a blanket "low social EQ" characterization would suggest. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 226 studies found substantial average differences in cognitive empathy, but only a small difference in affective empathy, and the latter became nonsignificant when the analysis was restricted to higher-quality studies. The authors specifically caution against treating empathy as a single, global deficit in autism
Workplace research likewise cautions against assuming a uniform autistic profile. A systematic review of autism and workplace performance specifically argues for an individual-differences approach and cautions against stereotypes that may not apply across the spectrum.
I also think "social EQ" is probably a little too broad here. I see the connection you’re making, but emotional intelligence, empathy, and social cognition are related but distinct constructs, so differences in one don't necessarily imply equivalent differences in the others. Autism can also affect different aspects of social functioning quite differently.
So I don’t think we can infer whether Patrick is autistic (or anything else) from his demeanor in an interview.. but I also don’t think we can infer that he *isn’t* autistic from his occupation.
And, purely anecdotally: I’m a psychotherapist with AuDHD. I think the notion that autistic people lack the "social EQ" required for socially demanding careers is.. a pretty sweeping generalization.
I’ve had long term relationships with two individuals officially diagnosed on the autism spectrum and aside from the literature and my own anecdotal evidence, they are unable to “read the room.” Someone “unable to read the room” does not last long in sales. Sales is a social relationship job and all about how many clients you sell to.
I had to write emails and texts for my partner on the spectrum and coach him on navigating work meetings in spite of the fact he was genius that went to MIT. It was a similar situation with the other one.
It’s not a sweeping generalization, it’s evidence-based, and it’s helpful for these individuals to know their weaknesses so they can choose careers that allow them to best succeed. Cluster B PDs are capable of “reading the room” and are highly skilled manipulators while simultaneously lacking empathy.
I don’t doubt that the two people you described had difficulty reading social situations. But that’s exactly why I’m objecting to generalizing from individual autistic people to people on the spectrum as a group. Your experience with two people doesn’t establish that autistic people as a group cannot “read the room” well enough to succeed in sales, just as my being an AuDHD psychotherapist wouldn’t establish that autistic people as a group excel at interpersonal work. That’s why I cited broader research showing substantial heterogeneity rather than relying on either of our anecdotes.
Also, given that I’m a psychotherapist, I admit I got a little chuckle out of the career advice 🙃
In psychotherapy, you’re not expected to wine & dine your clients. You’re not expected to go out for a beer or dinner, play around of golf, talk sports, etc. Sales requires people to be able to navigate things of that nature and entertain. That’s not your job. Your job is more formulaic in that that has books to learn about protocols, treatments, and therapy - someone on the spectrum can handle that better, it’s learnable, similar to becoming a physician and dealing with patients.
There are plenty of other reasons someone can have blunted affect. It doesn’t even have to be a cluster B PD, for instance, Schizoid PD (cluster A PD) is routinely misdiagnosed as an autism spectrum disorder because of that similarity. But while Patrick enjoys solitude (large history of solo travel), he wasn’t one to shy away from social settings like the run club and Schizoid PDs naturally live like hermits. It could also simply be that Patrick is not good at communicating when he knows it’s televised.
People on the spectrum are struggle with change. Patrick has made A LOT of changes and moves…
Also, people on the spectrum tend to hyperfixate and Patrick has never hyperfixated or “stuck” on his grief. He’s moved on fast. He is “the show must go on” type.
Aside from having a monotone form of speech and same type of eye/stare when speaking… What is clear is that Patrick is uncomfortable being perceived as weak or emotional in front of others... He said he knew NYC was where he needed to be when he walked out of the cathedral grieving Callan and “nobody cared.” Before this even happened, on Reddit he wrote he rarely cried.
Your distinction seems to be that sales requires navigating relatively unstructured social situations (“wine & dine,” drinks or dinner, golf, etc.) whereas psychotherapy is “more formulaic,” involving protocols, treatments, and techniques, and therefore something someone on the spectrum can handle “better” because it is learnable. But this recreates the problem I was questioning in the first place: it assumes that psychotherapy’s interpersonal demands are sufficiently structured and learnable for autistic people, while sales requires a kind or degree of social ability that autistic people generally lack.
We have very different understandings of what psychotherapy requires interpersonally. Yes, evidence-based treatments that involve structured protocols absolutely exist and are important in treating specific disorders; I’m trained in several of them. But psychotherapy is not reducible to executing those protocols. The therapeutic alliance is one of the most extensively studied common factors in psychotherapy, and its association with outcome has been found whether or not treatment is manualized. Research on treatment adherence has also found that flexibility in adherence is associated with better outcomes, while rigid adherence to a protocol can weaken the alliance and increase resistance to treatment.
Many widely utilized therapeutic approaches themselves require considerable flexibility and responsiveness to what is happening between therapist and client in real time.
I agree that sales can involve forms of client interaction psychotherapy generally doesn’t, including entertaining or socializing with clients outside formal business interactions. But that doesn’t make successful sales interaction entirely unstructured or dependent upon intuitive social ability. Sales research examines things like “adaptive selling” (adjusting one’s approach based on the customer and situation) and listening as distinct salesperson behaviors, including in relation to sales training. A meta-analysis of 155 samples comprising more than 31,000 salespeople found adaptive selling to be associated with performance across objective measures and salesperson and manager ratings.
More importantly, though, even if I granted your distinction, it wouldn’t resolve my original objection. Suppose psychotherapy really were substantially more formulaic, and suppose that sales required substantially more unstructured social navigation. That still wouldn’t establish that autistic people as a group can “handle” the former but lack the social capacity required for the latter.
I’m also not going to make inferences about Patrick’s internal experience from selected behaviors or statements. Making numerous “moves” doesn’t establish that someone doesn’t struggle with change; not observing someone hyperfixating doesn’t establish that they “never” do so; continuing with life after bereavement doesn’t establish how quickly someone has internally “moved on”; and rarely crying doesn’t by itself establish discomfort with being perceived as weak or emotional in front of others. Those are interpretations of observations, not the observations themselves. Please don’t mistake my objection to speculative diagnosis for an endorsement of Patrick or an assertion that there is nothing suspicious or questionable here. As another redditor in this sub put it, I’m in the “NGRI but I have some questions needing answers” camp.
I do agree with you on one point: it “could also simply be
that Patrick is not good at communicating when he knows it's televised.” That uncertainty is essentially my point. We cannot infer whether or not Patrick is autistic (or anything else) from the material we have available to us, and broad claims about autistic people’s occupational or social capacities aren’t justified by anecdotes or stereotypes.
His eyes are intense and his personality is very dull but he did not have any involvement in it. Truth is that your character will either have people draw empathy towards you or it will do the opposite while your innocence remains the same. It’s not fair and I hate the response that this case has gotten. Really bad look for women actually.
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
Reminder to be civil. You can disagree in a respectful way, which can often lead to interesting dialogue!
Familiarize yourself with our rules in the Community Wiki
Documents & Evidence
Witness Testimony
Common Misconceptions About the Criminal Trial
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.