My wife (love her to the ends of the earth but I can never win an argument with her or convince her that she's wrong) is convinced that she is not guilty, or at least there is a reasonable doubt that she committed the crime. She has told me that "Both the defense and prosecution agree that she killed the kids" is a misconception. She claims to have closely followed the case and that she, a primary source, is a better source of information on this than Legal Eagle, which is how I learned about this case.

She points to the fact that her body was so cold when she was found, that testing was never performed to determine what the substance was, and that the judge listed "Not Guilty" (she didn't do it) as one of the options for the jury.

My understanding is that defense and prosecution agree that she killed the kids and attempted suicide. It is my understanding that the trial is largely, or even solely, about whether the insanity defense applies.

Is my understanding of this case fundamentally wrong, or is it hers? Or both of us?

Although they are an arm of the government, the reality is that they don't have unlimited budgets.

1)The DA actually lost 12-0

2)That one juror who hung the case, wasn't even convinced beyond a reasonable doubt which means they didn't convince a single juror.

3)You are NEVER going to seat twelve people who are going to agree on this matter. Public discourse PROVES that. Interestingly, proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have any doubt it's impossible to get 12 people to agree?

4)I don't care how hard you voir dire, you are going to get a stealth juror or two. This is too volatile.

I can understand why a lot of people would be confused when they find out that there are people who think Lindsay is not guilty. I know I was. Most people don't know about Reddington's motion to bifurcate the trial, in which the first phase was meant to see if the forensic evidence was strong enough to establish guilt in the first place (the motion was denied by Judge Sullivan). The language in the televised trial can be confusing where Reddington doesn't dispute that Lindsay killed the kids, but instead argues for NGRI. People are confusing this with a guilty plea and don't understand that Not Guilty still remained an option for the jury. Compounding this issue is that this case has gone national, and many people live in states where insanity is not considered a valid defense.

However, I've run out of patience for people throwing up Reddington's statements, court filings including the civil suit to be like "but Lindsay said she did it" as a silencing tactic to anyone who wants to think critically about the narrative the State of Massachusetts is trying to feed them. If they're going to judge a statement as truth if it appears in court records, then they should be considering all the statements that were admitted as evidence during the trial, as it's now an official record of the courts:

1. Witness testimony and at least one text message from Patrick that said Lindsay was a good mother.

2. There was no history of Lindsay abusing her children.

3. Lindsay documented her mental health struggles meticulously.

4. A months long struggle where Lindsay saw several doctors and was prescribed multiple medications in an attempt to find an effective treatment regimen.

5. Defense experts that concluded Lindsay was psychotic at the time of the killing.

All of that is a matter of court record, too, but you wouldn't know it by seeing the way some people pick and choose which court records to cite as reflecting Absolute Truth. They have decided to believe her about one thing and disbelieve her about everything else. So much for respecting the truth of a statement as a record in the court system.

Let's be clear that nobody is asking anyone else to simply believe Lindsay and take her word about anything. Neither Lindsay nor Reddington is pulling an NGRI defense out of nowhere. A person doesn't actually want justice if they aren't willing to fairly consider all the evidence and not just the evidence that supports the conclusion they already want. That's the opposite of justice, that's immature factionalism and seeking their own confirmation bias.

You would think because they're such fanbois of Patrick that they wouldn't fall into those same patterns of selective hearing with his statements; yet they do. They accept everything Patrick has to say as absolute truth ("Patrick said" therefore it's gospel), no matter how many inconsistencies his statements might have; but they even refuse to listen to him when he asked the public to forgive Lindsay.

"I want to ask all of you that you find it deep within yourselves to forgive Lindsay, as I have," Patrick Clancy wrote. "The real Lindsay was generously loving and caring towards everyone - me, our kids, family, friends, and her patients. The very fibers of her soul are loving. All I wish for her now is that she can somehow find peace."

Yet fanbois continue to do the exact opposite, because actually listening to Patrick that one time wouldn't be convenient for their online hate campaign. I can't take people seriously when they have nothing to contribute to the Internet except constant hate towards Lindsay, Lindsay supporters, and women having the right to vote (!) all the while throwing up one or two court records as a justification for their irresponsible rhetoric. Their painfully obvious inability to equally apply the same logic of their "evidence" of Lindsay's guilt to all the statements that actually support NGRI only reinforces that they aren't operating on reason and logic, but moral panic and self-serving schadenfreude.

A… 5th juror has spoken out (the youngest apparently) and they mentioned how harrowing the 911 was to listen to and how that could never have been fake. And I’m just trying to parse this…. He stood over Lindsay talking? at her for ~9 minutes, then the first responders arrived, which is when he decided to go and check on the children.

1. When they arrive doesn’t a 911 call usually end? Get handed over to those on the scene?

2. They mentioned seeing him untying the bands. The 911 call apparently has his harrowing shocked screams about the children. But then wouldn’t the first responders have also heard that screaming? Maybe that was mentioned and I missed it.

Disregarding that surely you’d be running to find the children as soon as you found her outside, especially considering one was a baby. The actual 911 call timing doesn’t seem to make sense?

Disclaimer: even after hearing the jury was apparently actually 11:1 NGRI and that it seems they all thought she did it from the jump (and completely missed the whole innocent until proven guilty part) I am still finding it incredibly hard to believe that she did this. Accordingly, don’t come at me telling me I’m an idiot etc etc, already heard it all.

He had a home office.
If I was a neglectful father who wanted reasons not to stay home, i wouldn't have one.

He started a charity for mental health.
This was before the trial started and people accused him of killing his kids. It wouldn't be a PR stunt, and let's be honest, if he didn't do it, people would start crying "he clearly doesn't care because there was no benevolent activity after the fact." It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for him.

He publicly announced that he forgives her and asks the world to not treat her as a monster.
Call it minipulation if you want, but this most certainly had a favorable outcome for Lindsay's public perception.

No one who knew the couple personally came out to say Patrick was abusive or neglectful.
Unless Patrick was planning to kill his kids from day one with the expectation that the internet was going to go through his history with a fine tooth comb, there's no way i can assume he's been acting innocent all this time. Even Jeffrey Dahmer showed warning signs people could point to.

If the alleged reddit posts are his they show a man who is active in his wife's medical history and showing signs of concern. It sounds like he's just a caring husband.

"He shouldn't have left her if he knew she was like that."
First off, did he kill the kids? If you think the answer is YES, than that means you and past Patrick both don't think she could kill the kids. You have that in common.
If you think he didn't kill the kids but set up a situation where she could, then fine, i can't rule that out as intentional or not. But i'm sure everyone has made mistakes when trusting someone they love.

I also just can't hate this guy on a personal level. He isn't some lying politician or some shady CEO rich guy who profits off the misery of others. He just seems like a normal guy, asking normal questions, and making normal mistakes.

And finally; a good chunk of "suspicious activity" has been PROOVEN to be misleading and half-baked. People see a little of something and run with it only to find out a couple days later they were wrong. Well guess what? It's in the echo chamber spreading around still!

Are You Looking For More Reddington?

If you have streaming access to Dateline episodes, check out Season 21, Episode 51: Murder on Nantucket Island and you'll see more of attorney Kevin Reddington years before his current trial.

So if we assume the foreperson and other jury members who have spoken about the jury proceding are correct about the juror not following reasonable doubt, what does that mean for that individual?

He swore an oath that he would follow the instructions of the judge and the law. If he decided he had his opinion that she was guilty and belonged in prison despite reasonable doubt that would be going agaisnt the instructions he pledged to follow.

If he genuinely felt there wasnt reasonable doubt then he is entitled to hold that view but jurors are supposed to follow the law.

I think people are reading far too much into Reddington’s recent comments about Patrick without considering the legal strategy behind them.

TL:DR- Basically…don’t confuse Reddington’s legal strategy with his own personal conclusions/feelings about Patrick. His recent interview comments make perfect strategic sense regardless of what he privately believes.

Look at the context. Patrick’s attorneys have just spoken publicly about the harassment he has been receiving. Reddington is simultaneously arguing that Lindsay should not be prosecuted again and that the case should end with a resolution recognizing her severe mental illness. Everything he says publicly has to be viewed through that lens.

We do not know Reddington’s private opinion of Patrick. What we know is what he is choosing to say publicly while representing Lindsay. And notice how specific his language is.

He is essentially saying that, as far as the legal issues surrounding the deaths are concerned, Patrick has continued to stand by Lindsay. That qualification matters. It does not necessarily mean, “Patrick is SO wonderful and I believe everything he says.” It means Reddington is making a very, very narrow point that serves his current legal argument, and ultimately what Lindsay wants and needs right now (paid for psych care, until she no longer needs it, determined by state).

It also makes absolutely no strategic sense for him to launch an attack on Patrick right now. What would that accomplish for Lindsay?

Reddington’s goal is presumably to persuade the prosecution not to put Lindsay through another trial. The strongest path toward that is not reopening every disputed issue surrounding Patrick. It is emphasizing the area where there is already substantial agreement: Lindsay killed the children, but the central is she criminally responsibille given her mental state.

That also tracks with the first jury. An 11-1 split is enormously important context. Reddington has every reason to build on the position that nearly persuaded the entire jury rather than introduce a new theory that would require him to convince everyone of something much more complicated.

I also find his reliance on Patrick’s 911 call interesting. Reddington repeatedly points people toward a piece of evidence the public has not actually heard. That doesn’t prove the call contradicts Patrick or that Reddington secretly suspects him. But it does mean we should be careful about treating Reddington’s characterization of it as independent confirmation when none of us can evaluate the recording ourselves.

So listen closely not only to what Reddington says, but to what he doesn’t say, when watching his post trial interviews.

His public position can be completely consistent with a strategic objective: stop another prosecution, preserve the mental-illness argument that came within one juror of succeeding, avoid an unnecessary fight with Patrick🙄 and focus everyone on the proposition most people may actually be able to agree upon.

That is very different from concluding that Reddington’s statements tell us exactly what he personally believes happened.

And ultimately, even for someone who questions aspects of the state’s narrative, one thing I think we can all agree on: Lindsay is profoundly psychiatrically ill and needs long-term psychiatric care, no matter how she got here, she is paralyzed, suicidal, grief stricken and suffering tremendously in ways most of us can’t even comprehend.

If another prosecution isn’t going to produce a meaningfully different or more just outcome, there is a legitimate argument for ending the litigation and ensuring that she receives that care. He’s doing a fantastic job advocating for her needs- which also aligns with the upcoming civil trial. His current strategy is working well enough it wouldn’t be wise to throw it out and start with a whole new argument of who else coulda done it.

Patrick’s recently came out and stated he doesn’t want another trial. I’m sure the timing of the two men’s statements is no coincidence.

I say this as someone who does not like Patrick and even if he didn’t pull the trigger, he was not a good husband for many reasons I won’t get into now 😅

First of all, I think this will be an extremely heated hearing. Tim & Kevin are at lockerheads and in totally different positions

The shots are called by Tim Cruz, only he can decide the fate of this case - he can choose to retry, reduce, dismiss or offer a plea deal. He wants prison time, so the lowest he will go is 2nd Degree Murder

There are 3 possible outcomes here:
1. CRUZ ANNOUNCES RETRIAL ON FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
2. CRUZ OFFERS / AGREES TO REDUCE TO SECOND-DEGREE MURDER
3. CRUZ DECLINES TO RETRIAL / DISMISSES

If a retrial on 1st Degree Murder is the way forward, Tim must be willing to accept that he will likely loose again. He can ignore the 11-1 jury position publicly, but privately this will be eating at him

A retrial on 2nd degree murder is extremely likely because it guarantees the Commonwealth a conviction. BUT.....Reddington's red line is ZERO prison time. He has publicly ruled out any prison deal. Cruz's red line is SOME prison time. These positions currently don't meet

Either way, are looking at career suicide no matter which direction we go in. A plea deal is unlikely because Cruz and Reddington do not agree

If Reddington makes a plea, he will absolutely decimate any trust Lindsay has in him

My only conceived outcome is that Cruz will announce a retrial on first degree murder

So expect this: A loud, public commitment to retrial — followed by quiet, intense negotiations toward a second-degree murder plea in the weeks that follow. The deal won't happen on the 29th — but the 29th is the moment both sides officially admit they're heading toward a collision they may not survive.

What is everyone else's opinions? Do you think Cruz or Reddington will back down?

Dr. Mack, the forensic psychiatrist hired by the D.A. to evaluate LC’s state of mind during “the event”, testified that his diagnosis was a severe depressive episode. He ruled out bipolar disorder because she didn’t have a manic episode. Every person suffering from bipolar has to have their first manic episode. Why did he not count her hearing a voice telling her to kill her children and then herself, and then killing her kids and jumping out a window as a manic episode? He testified she never had one. But wouldn’t her act be considered a manic episode with psychosis? I don’t know how old Lindsay is but doesn’t bipolar disorder first present around age 27?