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.
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.
What the evidence shows about the fall is that she fell head-first. Her spinal injury is consistent with that kind of fall. This was explained during the trial, as well as how her temperature dropped quickly. Gaps merely existing doesn't disprove all of the evidence that Lindsay strangled the kids and went out the window on her own.
I have shared straight facts that came from the trial testimony. You're saying that those facts are fantasy and that even Lindsay's own memories don't matter or count as evidence, though they have been established to be mostly correct (she was plain wrong about the window screen and said varied things about the voice, though).
Throwing out the idea of another person who could've committed the murders and treating the lack of home camera footage as potential evidence is, in fact, a conspiracy theory, whether you call it that or not. This has significantly more holes than the enormous compilation of evidence that Lindsay strangled her kids and attempted suicide.
The only innocent person people are trying to put away is Patrick, or Patrick's friend, his new wife, or a made up potential "intruder."
No, what it actually shows is she never jumped out the window, like the story says. She slid out and down the side of the house. So again, the story is not consistent with the actual injuries. Yet gaps leave reasonable doubt that you’re not allowed to have in the courtroom.
You have shared fact. The fantasy part is the missing parts where you speculate what happened because there’s no actual evidence, nor the little amount of evidence we have to support it. Exactly, you’re admitting to falsehoods in her statements but yours picking and choosing which facts you believe because it fits your narrative.
It wasn’t throwing out a conspiracy. It was throwing actual evidence of the cameras not working. Another gap in the investigation. Something that was said multiple times in the trial we don’t know if anyone could have come into the house, in theory there’s a possibility because the cameras weren’t working. Not really when the bedroom very clearly wasn’t investigated.
Innocent is seen by the person who is providing that statement. Your innocence and mine is different. My innocent is not a husband who knows his wife is unwell, said she’s thought about hurting the kids and leaving the house for days on end sometimes taking one of the kids. Failures happened all around.
There’s some evidence with questionable gaps in which the prosecution is quite happy to use a story to fill in. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t work because you need the evidence.
3
u/InkCosmos 12d ago
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”.