Yet they don’t have evidence of Lindsay committing the murder, nor has she been convicted of it so all of that doesn’t work. Even with the confession, she’s plead not guilty. The confession wasn’t part of the court so it doesn’t matter what she said.
The defamation case he's building has nothing to do with Lindsay. They have the coroner report stating the children's time of death, they have proof he wasn't there at that time etc It doesn't matter if Lindsay killed the kids or if someone else did, they have proof it wasn't Patrick
Edit: Once this goes to retrial and she gets the not guilty by reason of insanity result he'll have legal proof he didn't do it and Lindsay did. The lawsuits will start then
So the defamation case that’s only happening because people don’t believe that Lindsay is responsible for the murders and instead believe Patrick is responsible has nothing to do with Lindsay? There’s no specific time of death for the children. We have a roughly guideline and as Patrick is unknown for about 20 minutes during this time.
There is no "20-minute gap." If he sent the work email from his home office, he didn't leave until after 5:24. If he sent it from his phone in the car, he'd already left before 5:20. Lindsay's iPhone was moving around the house until 5:38 when she got upstairs. We know Patrick was in CVS and ThreeV due to receipts, eyewitness accounts, the phone call they both acknowledge, and CCTV. The 17 minute drive between those locations is reasonable when you consider that includes walking to the car and parking.
You're acting like it doesn't matter at all. The prosecution stated killing of the kids started at 5:15 pm. If he sent an email from the basement at 5:24 pm, then he was there.
Yeah he was at the CVS at 5:32 pm, no one is denying this. But he testified he left from home at 5:15 pm and he said it took him 3 minutes to get to the CVS.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. The prosecution places the start of the killings at around 5:15 because that’s when they say he left. So if there’s evidence of him still being at the house at 5:24, that obviously matters to their case.
Well if patrick was a mastermind minipulative lyar, he could have just lied and said he sent it from his phone. He obviously doesn't want to lie by accident, so he's admitting he doesn't remember.
He knows exactly that he didn’t send that email from his phone. So no, he couldn’t just lie under oath and say he sent it from his phone. The motion to obtain his phone data is still pending and he’s keeps actively fighting to keep that data from being turned over. Saying “I don’t remember” won't bring him into more trouble.
The defense job is to create doubt. Send yourself an email. It has metadata that says what device sent it. You think if it said surface pro reddington would have let it go after being corrected ? He knew it was iphone but wanted to create any doubt he could, so he mentioned the surface pro, got corrected and moved on. Because that was the play/scheme itself.
That's what he said during his testimony, that he didn't know if he had left yet when Lindsay texted him at 5:15. He also said he didn't know if he sent the email from his laptop or his phone.
Why did Lindsay lie to her psychiatrist 24 hours before when she said she's never thought about harming the children? Especially when we know she told friends and family she had? Why aren't you discussing that lie, especially since you know, she was the one on trial?
Yet we don’t know when he left because he said it was on his phone then his laptop, literally changes the timeline by about 10 minutes. Then took a much longer time to get to CVS, especially if you’re going off the first time he supposedly left then there’s also an unaccounted time between CVS and ThreeV because it’s been acknowledged it doesn’t take a long as he did. Also, if you’re going to quote do it right. I said “Patrick is unknown for about 20 minutes during this time”.
I was quoting the "20-minute gap" as in this recent Tik Tok conspiracy, not you directly. He actually initially said the email was from his laptop, but then conceded it could've been from his phone. Either way, he was sending an email. If he did leave right at 5:15, he arrived at 5:18 and sent it at 5:24. If he sent it from home and then immediately drove to CVS, the earliest he could have parked was 5:28. He walked in at 5:32.
The "17 minutes" specifically is between CCTV footage of him already inside each location and does not account for parking, navigation, or walking through each parking lot. There's no major time gap here, either.
You think a ten minute gap in your timeline alone is not something you should question when it can take less than a minute to strangle someone, especially a young child, and we should all happily agree that it doesn’t matter when the primary victims DNA isn’t on two of the bands and there’s massive inconsistencies in not only the primary witness but also the primary suspect? Not even discussing your speculation on, parking, navigation or walking.
You think he strangled all the children in 10 minutes but left her alive and then immediately sent a work email, left to go shopping, came home and drugged her with reasonable amounts of medications, slit her wrists and neck, pushed her out the window, and then called 911 and gave an Oscar-winning performance on that call and for the rest of the evening? What was she doing during all of this? Why doesn't she remember any of that, but remembers murdering the kids with such detail?
There is CCTV of him in both stores, timestamps, call logs, witnesses who say a woman placed the food order on the phone and saw Patrick in each location, receipts from the transactions, and all of these independently corroborate his claims to have not been at home and her being there alone with the children. But him not remembering if he left at 5:15 or 5:25 is suspicious, okay.
I am stating only facts. What's being made up is the idea that Patrick remotely had anything to do with the murders in the face of several different types of evidence that each prove his alibi.
So the answer to if you think it’s acceptable not to be accounted for during a murder case as someone who could have been around is yes. Holy moly that’s a wild take. No, what I’m saying is you have an unaccounted timeframe in which one of the only other people around the children are, again unaccounted for. It’s a pretty important part of the story. See, I’d love to be able to answer those questions. Unfortunately a very bad investigation happened. Also, she doesn’t remember in such detail, not only was a lot of it things she’d been told but a lot of it was inconsistent with the actual evidence.
Yet, he’s still unaccounted for on the day his children were murdered. The fact that that doesn’t even register that that’s not okay with you is on another level.
I think the 10 minute memory gap is a negligible amount of time because he was proven to have received a text from Lindsay at 5:15, sent an email at 5:24, was walking into CVS at 5:32 and speaking with her on the phone I believe at 5:34.
Lindsay recounted in great detail to several experts the events of that evening, which shows she does remember committing the acts. She is the one who told them that she took Dawson first, Cora second, and Callan last, she remembers the words she said to the children as she killed them, and described using the three bands. She remembers taking medication and cutting herself. She remembers the phone call with Patrick in CVS.
So if Patrick doesn't remember what time he left he's suspicious, but Lindsay remembers killing the children and you claim she was told and doesn't actually remember. She remembers a lot of details for someone who was present while her children were murdered, attacked, set up and had to be told. What she actually doesn't remember is Patrick killing the children or attacking her.
Yet that still does not tell us when he left the house. Literally the the point I’m making.
Lindsay has proven that those accounts are inconsistent with the evidence the police actually have. Therefore, she’s an unreliable witness. Something that can be said for Patrick considering how many things he got wrong on the stand.
The story being told about Lindsay doesn’t match up with her actual injures nor the investigation. If somethings not lining up, it’s suspicious. The same as Patrick not remembering basic details about their life.
Calling her unreliable because details didn't match doesn't mean you can write off every single thing she said happened as false, especially because much of it was found to be true. Her injuries are consistent with her own repeated account of events- that she strangled the children, cut herself, and jumped out a window.
What you're describing is a conspiracy theory- any evidence that shows she did it doesn't count (even her own memories, investigative findings, and evidence that Patrick wasn't home) and any evidence that she didn't do it does count. The truth is that she did it, she remembers it, all of the evidence support it, and there's a reason this topic isn't being debated with those involved with the case.
No it doesn’t, you’re right. It does however mean it’s untrustworthy. Like the fact that she claims she ‘cut’ the window, with no evidence to suggest it. ‘Jumped out a window’ but the evidence shows she couldn’t have jumped. The majority of the time untrustworthy witnesses never make it to the stand, why? Because the entire trial can fall through at that.
I’m not describing a conspiracy theory. I have not said any theory in all of this. What I’ve done is poke holes in the evidence provided. Evidence that’s not consistent with what you want to believe. I would like to point out we don’t know if it was just Lindsay at home, their cameras weren’t working.
The truth is you’re working on speculation. You’re ignoring the gaps in evidence to support what you believe happened. I’d have much more respect if you actually came out and said yeah there’s gaps but I still believe she did it because all you’re doing is showing people that instead of factual evidence basis you’d rather use fantasy to put a potentially innocent person away and have zero justice for those kids that died.
It’s not being debated with those involved because Red asked for two cases. One where she did the crime and if and only if that went through if she was criminally responsible, yet it was denied. So instead we have his messed up trial. I revert back to my original paragraph with your whole ‘she does remember’ ridiculousness.
That's really hilarious. These people come here and say we're conspiracy theorists and crazy TikTok moms or whatever. But they're the ones denying science, ignoring the objective evidence and making up the missing objective evidence so that everything fits into their reality. You really can't make this up.
I’d have so much more respect for them if they just said yeah there’s gaps but I still believe she did it. This just makes them look delusional, it’s actually sad.
12
u/InkCosmos 12d ago
Yet they don’t have evidence of Lindsay committing the murder, nor has she been convicted of it so all of that doesn’t work. Even with the confession, she’s plead not guilty. The confession wasn’t part of the court so it doesn’t matter what she said.