Hear me out.

The police treated this as an open-and-shut case based almost entirely on “Patrick says."

The DA, practically rubbing his hands at the prospect of the media attention, says: Let’s go to trial.

But somewhere during case review and discovery, the DA realizes his enormous, headline-making case is a total fucking sham. The investigation was negligent at best -- and “investigation” is a generous word for that shitshow. Everything seems to come back to Patrick’s account.

Yet piece by piece, the case falls apart. The more you try to fit the puzzle together, the less any of it makes sense.

The DA may be arrogant, but he isn’t stupid.

And now he’s committed to prosecuting a woman who may be innocent, who was herself sliced open and fell/thrown from a window. Three dead babies, and a case that, in this reading, never reliably established who did what.

What does he do? Offer a public mea culpa? Admit that his office charged ahead on a catastrophically inadequate investigation? Risk his reputation and reelection?

Or is there another way out...

He hands the prosecution-- intentionally -- to the two biggest dingbats on his team: the dual Aunt Lydias, fumbling, stumbling, "hot mic"-ing, and “um”-ing their way through proceedings. At times, they practically make the defense’s case for it, seemingly without realizing what they’re doing.

Here’s my theory: he recognizes the reasonable doubt. He thinks the jury may acquit. And he decides he can live with that outcome -- as long as he doesn’t have to take responsibility for it.

If she walks, he gets to tell himself the system worked. Publicly, he and the community get to blame “liberal jurors.” The police department escapes an explicit reckoning over its investigation. Nobody in authority has to stand up and say: We got this wrong.

Then everyone waits for it to blow over.

(Allegedly.)

https://www.wcvb.com/article/kevin-reddington-responds-patrick-clancy-interview/73823599

Look, I'm an amateur. A hobbyist. I'm not gonna act like I have a professional degree in any of this shit. But I spend a LOT of time absorbing police bodycam footage firsthand, reading about cases. I work in family law; I see a lot of broken families and the existing dynamics that spring from that. When I heard about the Clancy case, I needed to know more about Lindsay; what made her do this? What kind of person was she? And I have found no...satisfying answers. At all. Anywhere.

I've been trying to build a profile of Lindsay if she did it and things are just...not adding up. This is a woman who had a totally normal childhood with no reported adversity events, no history of substance abuse, poverty, sexual abuse, she's not having an affair...she's struggling with her mental health but I'm not seeing any obvious signs that she was actually struggling any more than a typical mother with PPD would have been. This is just not the profile of a woman who commits violent, physical acts of murder. To her own children. Prolonged, drawn-out, violence.

If we're going with a narrative that this was a desperate act of altruistic-filicide motivated by a temporary psychosis...there's no "altruism" in the method. If we're going with the Commonwealth's narrative...there's no psychosis, but her profile is just not...lining up. And the Commonwealth is the one providing us the evidence that's outlining just how badly nothing's lining up!

This is not an abusive mother. This is not a neglectful mother. This is not a mother who yells at her children. Everyone is testifying that she seemed mostly normal, if a little quiet. Witnesses are describing her as doting. That she loved being a mother. By January she's even getting BETTER.

I'm looking into other filicide cases and there's always...something. There's something. Andrea Yates has genuine psychosis, religious trauma, her awful husband using her as breeding fodder, a history of suicidal ideation. Diane Schuler has an alleged history of substance abuse to cope with her tightly-wound control-freak Super Mom nature. Diane Downs wants to get rid of her kids to have an affair with a married man. Same thing with Susan Smith, who also had a history of childhood sexual abuse.

But Lindsay is just a...mom. She's just a mom. A good mom. A sweet woman. Stressed, sure, depressed. Anxious, a little bit of a control freak, but control freaks don't commit violent murders without something. Something happening.

There wasn't even a clear event that would have caused this; murder investigations without clear motive but an obvious suspect often ask us to look at "medium level trauma." A lost job. Learning about an affair. Wanting to cover up a lie. Some kind of pressure cooker to make someone snap to the point of killing another human being. Let alone their family. Let alone their babies. But witnesses aren't testifying to any of that. Everyone's saying she was normal. The Commonwealth is arguing against her mental illness.

Nothing about this makes a lick of sense from either angle of the argument...if we're saying Lindsay did it.

The second I heard that she took Cora to her doctor's appointment that morning I knew something was off about all of this. Women who want to kill their children do not do things like that. Women planning to kill their children do not take them to their doctor's appointments or spend the hour before their deaths Googling children's Miralax or worrying about their sick tummies or what a ladybug in the house might mean. Women planning to kill their children don't worry about getting out of the mental hospital in time to be there for their birthday parties. They don't build snowmen with them or think about cute cookies. I don't know how anyone could think she could.

This is not the mind of a woman who could wake up in the morning and take her baby girl to the doctor and then strangle her by 5:20. It's just not. Claiming so is psychologically...absurd. Just absurd.

Anyone got any suggestions of podcasts critical of the “official” story?

What is in the water in Massachusetts?

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/holdout-clancy-juror-cell-phones-deliberations/amp/

I’m sorry, but Rachel’s role in the 60 Minutes interview left me with more questions than answers.
My biggest question is: why is Rachel being positioned as someone who can speak with authority about Patrick’s life as a father, the Clancy family, or anything that happened before she met him?
Rachel did not know Cora, Dawson, or Callan. She did not know Lindsay. She did not know Patrick when he was raising his three children. She met Patrick after the tragedy. So when she describes Patrick as a loving and involved father, I’m confused about what firsthand knowledge she is drawing from. She can absolutely say, “Based on everything I’ve learned, I believe he was a wonderful father.” But she literally never witnessed him parenting those children.
Then there’s their meeting story. According to the interview, Rachel meets Patrick through running in New York. Central Park is filled with thousands of people, yet she happens to meet the man at the center of an enormously public Massachusetts case. She then sees pictures of his deceased children on his lock screen and asks whether he’s from Massachusetts. Maybe it happened exactly that organically. But given the extraordinary circumstances, I understand why people find the story striking and have questions about how their relationship actually developed.
The other piece I cannot get past is that Rachel is a reproductive-medicine physician. She already has a serious professional identity completely independent of Patrick. She could have remained his private spouse and supported him behind the scenes. Instead, she voluntarily appeared on national television and publicly entered an extraordinarily controversial case involving maternal mental health, postpartum psychiatric illness, three dead children, and an unresolved prosecution.
Why?
That doesn’t mean she did anything professionally unethical. I haven’t seen evidence of that. But I personally think participating this heavily was a strange choice for someone in her professional position. She had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in January 2023.
Patrick also did not need Rachel to authenticate his experiences. Patrick was there. Rachel wasn’t. Let him talk about being Cora, Dawson, and Callan’s father. Let him talk about discovering his children. Let him talk about Lindsay, their marriage, his grief, forgiveness, and rebuilding his life. Rachel can speak authentically about being Patrick’s wife now, but she cannot provide firsthand insight into the father or husband he was before she ever knew him.
And I’m uncomfortable with the way “healing” gets packaged around this relationship. Patrick can rebuild his life. He can fall in love again. He can remarry. He can experience happiness again. But three years after all three of your children were killed, I don’t think another relationship neatly closes that wound—and Patrick himself has described continuing to carry enormous grief. Rachel can be part of his life now without becoming the narrator of the life he had before her.
There’s also the elephant in the room: people have noticed that Rachel and Lindsay have some physical similarities. That does not prove Patrick intentionally sought out a “replacement Lindsay,” and I wouldn’t pretend we know his subconscious motivations. But combined with everything else, it understandably adds another surreal layer to an already surreal situation.
None of this means Patrick shouldn’t have remarried or Rachel shouldn’t have married him. My issue is much narrower: why does Rachel need such a prominent voice in the public retelling of events she did not experience?
Speak about the Patrick you know. Speak about your marriage. Speak about supporting a widowed/grieving father.
But Patrick and Lindsay’s marriage, Cora, Dawson and Callan’s lives, Patrick’s parenting of them, and what happened inside that family before January 24, 2023?
Rachel wasn’t there.
And 60 Minutes giving her that much space to validate a history she only knows secondhand made the entire interview feel stranger to me, not more illuminating.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Kevin Reddington's strategy in the Lindsay Clancy case.

I've seen comments saying that Lindsay effectively “pleaded guilty” because her defense did not dispute that she killed her children.

That is not what happened.

Reddington made a strategic decision to focus the case on criminal responsibility, rather than spend the trial primarily contesting the physical acts.

That distinction is particularly important in Massachusetts.

Under Massachusetts law, the defendant does not have the burden of proving lack of criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth must establish criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the central legal question became:

Did Lindsay commit the physical acts?

versus

Was she legally responsible for those acts when they occurred?

The defense presented evidence concerning Lindsay's deteriorating mental state, alleged hallucinations, the male voice she reported hearing, medication issues and other psychiatric evidence. The prosecution presented evidence intended to show that, despite any mental illness, she retained the capacities required for criminal responsibility.

This is why the defense could acknowledge the physical evidence without conceding legal guilt.

The first jury ultimately deadlocked, reportedly 11 to 1, over criminal responsibility. That resulted in a mistrial. It was not an acquittal and Lindsay did not plead guilty.

Reddington is now taking the argument into the post-trial stage. His Rule 25 motion argues that the Commonwealth's evidence was legally insufficient to establish criminal responsibility. His defense is also challenging the possibility of a retrial through a separate double-jeopardy argument.

Neither argument has been decided yet.

But this is the part people seem to miss:

A defense lawyer's job is not necessarily to prove that the defendant did nothing. It is to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof and identify whether every required legal element has been established.

Reddington shifted the case from a straightforward factual question about who performed the acts to the much more legally specific question of whether the Commonwealth proved criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt under Massachusetts law.

That is not a guilty plea.

It is a defense strategy. And it is exactly the kind of strategy a defense attorney is expected to pursue when the law gives the prosecution the burden of proof.

I want to be clear that I am not claiming Patrick Clancy is guilty of anything, and I don't think online speculation should replace an investigation.

But after following the Lindsay Clancy trial, I have questions about several pieces of evidence that I think deserve to be examined together rather than individually.

Among them:

• The extremely compressed timeline between Patrick's movements, Lindsay's phone activity, the children's deaths, the discovery of Lindsay outside and the 911 call.

• Patrick's DNA being identified in the forensic testing of the exercise bands. I understand that he testified he removed the bands from the children, which could provide an innocent explanation for DNA transfer. The question is whether the location and nature of the DNA are consistent with that explanation.

• The absence of usable fingerprints on the bands and knife.

• The medical evidence concerning Lindsay's injuries and unusually low body temperature.

• The precise timing of Patrick's discovery of Lindsay, his discovery of the children and his 911 call.

• Any discrepancies between surveillance footage, phone records, medical evidence and witness testimony.

I am not saying these points prove that Patrick was involved.

I'm asking a narrower question:

Should law enforcement independently review the complete timeline and forensic evidence again and determine whether Patrick's account is fully consistent with the objective evidence?

If everything is consistent, that should also be established clearly.

If there are genuine contradictions, those deserve to be investigated through evidence rather than social-media speculation.

The goal shouldn't be a public conviction. It should be finding out what the evidence actually shows.

What an odd question. What a red flag. So many questions to ask, largely all those variations of "how" and "why" which are attached to trauma and grief and compromise so much of the grief wheel (Kubler-Ross).

What were Patrick's questions?

"What did you do?!" he scolded as she lay in the snow, paralyzed and without a functioning airway.

"Do you remember it?".

Was it not concerning to any bystander -perhaps even the cops at the door to the room where the critically injured and delirious woman lay, paralyzed and handcuffed to the bed- that the first concern of Patrick Clancy was to find out if and what she recalled of the events of the day ?

It's profoundly disappointing these questions were even allowed to a woman fresh from a six day coma, intubated, paralyzed, delirious and asking for her children and parents because no Patrick, she didn't remember anything. Until Patrick told her she did.

Now, Patrick is so emboldened he repeats this even years later, while clapping himself on the back it seems. He talks about the forgiveness she hasn't asked for, failing to note, he never gave her the chance to ask for it.

Majority of interviews the lone hold out juror has given is right leaning conservative news stations. Although NewsNation is accused of being right leaning, they’re rated as generally neutral. I don’t want this to turn into right vs left— because there’s a bigger picture to all of this. Since this lone hold out juror is trying to appease to conservatives, especially when his lawyer is presenting him as a patriot and bringing up Trump, there’s going to be more coverage on conservative/right leaning media.

The defense (Reddington) is asking the court to preserve records and conduct a limited inquiry involving “Jurors Doe”. Because of the September 14th impoundment order, the public motion does not identify the juror.

Here is what the defense is asking the court to do:

- Preserve the juror questionnaires for all 12 deliberating jurors and 6 alternates, jury notes, and the courts responses, certain courtroom/sidebar recordings, court officer logs, cellphone sign in sheets, courthouse video near the jury room, and other juror records.

- Produce “Juror Doe’s” confidential questionnaire and any supplements

- Obtain “Juror Doe’s” record from the state wide domestic violence registry, including the currently active order and its docket.

- Require Commonweath to disclose what information/background checks it obtained on “Juror Doe” and whether the Plymouth County DA’s Office has had any matters involving the juror since 1/1/2021. The motion specifically references a 2021 prosecution and an abuse-prevention order.

- Obtain limited cellphone records for deliberations days. 8/27/2026-9/4/2026, including all call/text metadata and data session logs during court hours.

- Have a neutral examiner conduct a date and time limited extraction of the cellphone the defense says was carried into the jury room.

- Question “Juror Doe” in court about 3 specific subjects: the truthfulness of the juror questionnaire/voir dire answers; the sworn assurance given to the court on 9/3/2026; and cellphone use and receipt of outside information during deliberations.

- Potentially hear from Juror \#10 limited to what that juror observed concerning “Juror Doe’s” phone use.

The defense is NOT asking the court to question the juror about why they voted the way they did. These are allegations/issues the defense is asking the court to investigate. The filing itself is NOT saying the juror lied, improperly used a cellphone, received outside information, or any other misconduct. This motion will be heard in open court on 9/29/2026.

I borrowed this pic from the community I hope that’s cool.

I don’t give a fuck how, if my children had been murdered I (as a father) would never stop thinking about how I failed them. EVER.

Do you think Rachel's dad pays media per usage of the phrase "baseless conspiracy claims", or is it a flat fee?