Oof. That information shifts the frame a little. Thanks for doing the watching and reporting. No way I have the stomach for it. Agree that whoever killed the children must be held accountable. Even the mentally unwell must be accountable for their actions; otherwise we stop defining wrong as wrong and start relabeling it as mental illness. Where does that end?
Wow! My daughter watched it all and has said Patrick did it. I thought she was nuts, but not anymore. Thanks for this. Just glad those babies are enjoying the beauty of heaven, safe from these two parents forever.
If this is the case her lawyer did her a HUGE disservice by going for insanity plea. He should have spent more time and effort investigating Patrick. And did either of them have marks on their hands from the bands used to strangle? Inquiring minds. I’ve stayed out of this convo exactly bc I didn’t do the work of looking at everything but the psychos posting vids about how their kids are vampires really skewer the whole narrative.
Her lawyer actually caught him lying multiple times and called him out. I think his entire strategy was "not guilty" at any cost; if it had to be insanity, or if he could establish enough "reasonable doubt" by poking holes in Patrick's testimony... At first I thought he (Reddington) was a bit bumbling but after watching as much as I did, I think he was VERY strategic. It was quite fascinating to watch, actually.
Thanks a lot Jenna!! I love a good episode of Forensic Files and now I’m going to have to actually pay attention to this. If there’s one thing I hate it’s when police/DA get tunnel vision and don’t properly investigate a case , especially if it’s because of laziness or WORSE bc someone important knows the person actually guilty or has a grudge etc. I don’t usually watch too much of anything but this one actually deserves a look. If for no other reason than more reasonable and rational people need to be a voice and not just all the wackos. Although you’ve pointed out more than a few who see what’s happening!
it looks like he really is a legal genius, this is better than Perry Mason or Columbo - I can't wait to see the documentary where they lay it all out and prove it was actually him, and they make all of these people look like idiots for believing otherwise.
This column has made me feel like an idiot. I had begun yesterday to question if he was trying to get out of paying alimony and child support because he was going to leave her…….and this kinda makes me think……yeah. Maybe that’s exactly what happened.
I bet that is exactly how it started... men who want to escape their marriages, often do really insane things.. including trying to pin all the issues on the wife.
I am a woman born and will die a woman, and women will accuse men of anything and be believed.
I am one of those women who has watched other women for 75 years. And we women can either make a man happy or we can make life a living hell, and the last generation is the most abusive crop of women I have ever seen.
Hellywood has been denigrating men for years, portraying them as clumsy oafs. And these feminazi’s are from the pits of hell.
But I have to admit I had already thought of the possibility that this man could be the monster.
I think you're probably right on this. He was trying to establish reasonable doubt that she did it. However, that is not what Redd is saying -- according to Google.
Google says Redd was going for insanity. I call BS.
I just asked Google (Gemini) why Redd wanted to bifurcate the trial and Gemini says it was in order to avoid people wanting to punish Lindsay -- after seeing all the evidence.
I don't think so though. I think Redd knew that they would never allow him to bifurcate the trial. Gemini agreed - chances of that were zero.
I think you are right - that Redd was showing the jury all the holes.
Did you hear about the DA showing up and sitting right in front of the jury box the last day, staring at them? One lady on TikTok said the lone juror was probably paid off. IDK how she knew that or if she even did but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
I saw some comment about the betting markets... that if he stood his ground, even place a $1k bet, he could make $500k.. allegedly, of course.. but would not surprise me one bit..
At this point I don’t have a clue what really happened. But I was fascinated by the recording (real?) of one juror who was lambasting the holdout because "he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children"
Having done some research I’ve concluded that it’s bullshit to point to Patrick as the perpetrator of this crime. Lindsay’s own attorney stated this theory was “horrific” and inconsistent with the evidence. Therefore (and since no strangers dna was on scene) she is the only other person capable. Plus she DID admit to doing it to psychiatrists and a counselor according to Grok synopsis of the events. If you question it thoroughly and with an eye towards exoneration of Lindsay the evidence just isn’t there. I’m sorry but the truth is she killed her kids and no amount of psychiatric excuses will ever make it not guilty.
If Ms. MCCarthy has summarized the situation correctly, we know absolutely nothing of what Mrs. Clancy has said herself, other than that she signed a pre-written confession?
Interesting, but I'm 99.9% sure she killed the kids.
I do believe the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense is a legitimate verdict, and it MAY be the correct one here.
I'd have no problem with Mrs. Clancy being found not guilty by reason of insanity, and allowed to go free after a moderate amount of time in a mental hospital, PROVIDED she's surgically sterilized.
I've done a substack comparing this case to the upcoming Andrea Shaw case. Interesting -the ladies that support Mrs. Clancy almost all want Mrs. Shaw locked up for life or executed. There doesn't seem to be a lot of original thought going on with this group. https://skepticalactuary1348.substack.com/p/correction-lindsay-clancy-compared
I have to say Psyop when the information unfolds in a way that causes conclusions to change. You never get the full picture all at once. I believe that is intentional to leverage the fact that many people are unable to change their view once they have committed to it. They can't admit being wrong even if for a short time. It creates turmoil and arguments and division.
Thank you Jenna for always being able to change your mind based on facts, not previous assumptions. Thank you for digging in to a difficult subject that none of us want to spend the time on. It is what keeps the truth alive.
It’s tough to admit being wrong. That’s why I never form opinion on guilt or innocence unless I’ve followed a case thoroughly, and watched the full trial, if possible. Doing otherwise is simply accepting the conclusion we’ve been assigned, and that is never acceptable to me
It is more than just getting new information. It is getting only one side consistently and then when everyone thinks they know it all, they get a completely different story that makes the initial one suspect as heck.
An honest reporting would be "there are two suspects, the husband and the wife" but we only got the wife is guilty because the husband said so.
Yes. But,in this case,for some unknown reason,the husband WASNT a suspect. That is why the various theories are circulating…I definitely lean towards this being ANOTHER distraction…I’m not sure what it is we are being distracted from…
That there are people taking over the world. Using our investments to buy up realestate, companies and governments. Meanwhile the citizens are being turned into slaves and starved and exploited.
AI is going to replace all jobs and these people will claim that they own it (even though it was built by others smarter than them). What could be a future where everything is free and a single thought can make it a reality is being hidden from us while they and their greed oppress the 8 billion other people on this planet.
I have sometimes wondered how “they “ took so much of our creative “God spark” away… I absolutely believe we are more powerful than we know…soooo,remember,what you spend your energy thinking about,you are probably creating…use your power wisely. Namaste.
It isn't you or me that is the problem. There are enough citizens that are apathetic and going through the motions that the system feeds off of. I don't participate, but others keep it alive...
I no longer have any clue as to what happened that awful day except that three lovely children are dead. Was the lone juror a hero or an obstructionist? I thought a hero, but now I don't know. All I do know is that none of us know. Whoever did kill those beautiful babies will one day stand before God.
“Changing your mind requires a certain tolerance for discovering—and admitting—that you were spectacularly wrong. Not everyone enjoys that as much as I do.” 🤗
Isn’t it freeing, though? I’m so grateful that earlier in life I went through a couple of ‘oh shit’ crises where I had to tear up some old scripts and then write some new ones. I’ve liked myself better since then.
Being able and willing to admit you’re wrong is what marks you as a real truth-seeker. Keep doing your seeking and finding out loud! You have a delightfully unique voice that this sorry society really needs right now.
Like you I thought she was guilty and I don't excuse murder because of hormones. Then I saw that he very quickly remarried after quickly going on a trip after the murders and then his new father in law bought the newlyweds a house. And that she never really confessed. There's that old thing of "who benefits?" and he lost his kids but he clearly benefitted financially and if he was tired of dealing with a mentally challenged wife, he also benefitted. Now I wonder if he saw that previous murder in Ireland by the woman who also was a nurse and murdered her 3 children and the husband came home to find them. Maybe he did a copycat crime. Not sure at all that she did it now.
Play out the logic: Patrick kills the kids, goes upstairs and tries to kill Lindsay by making it look she committed suicide, throws her out a window, sees she’s not dead, goes downstairs, then outside and calls 911 BEFORE she expires. Why not wait until she’s dead? Ridiculous.
If you watch the trial, the timeline doesn't add up. That's the point. (But HE SAYS so and so, so that becomes the story.) Also from my response to your same comment above:
I asked Gemini how can they be sure the kids were alive when he left to go to the stores. The answer was not convincing at all. It said they would have screamed and she would have heard. They did not pinpoint the exact time of death of the children, just within a reasonable time frame. So theoretically she could have gone to the basement and seen them dead and decided to jump from the horror of seeing them. The watch shows her movements but does not prove she committed the murders. Gemini admitted that. So, with the timeline discrepancies...I would have to go with reasonable doubt at this point.
The youngest baby still had a faintly detectable heartbeat and his heart was restarted successfully at the hospital after he went into cardiac arrest. He died three days later. There is no physical way he survived that type of strangulation described by the medical examiner and ER physicians for almost an hour. The strangulation must have occurred just shortly before Patrick's arrival, which matches Lindsay's movements recorded on her watch.
I'd like to see the exact spot where she landed. Everyone talks about her paralysis, but almost no one is asking how her thyroid gland was shattered. Unless she landed on something very hard, and her thyroid hit exactly on that, we need another explanation.
If you’re going to post your thoughts exactly the same in two different places, those of us replying to those thoughts also have to paste our reply in both those places. It would be easier if you said what you thought in one spot and left it at that.
My reply to the first time you posted this:
“Just playing devil’s advocate here in “playing it out”: maybe because he couldn’t let too much time pass between when they could place him at the house and when he finally called, because then he will be questioned “why’d you wait so long to call?” It was less risky to gamble with the police and hoping they found her dead or she is unable to be resuscitated.
I honestly have become confused after being adamant she deserves the electric chair.
If this whole thing WERE a psyop from the beginning, they KNEW we were ripe for a “male hero” and primed to come down on lunatic women who would support her.
I’m confused how so little of what Jenna discovered was revealed to the public during the trial. And the majority of the public trusted that what was reported was accurate and made their opinions. So either our justice system is failing miserably at getting to the truth and is no longer reliable, or it DID get to the reasonable doubt and the media once again failed us in letting us see why.
Or, it’s exactly as we have seen it to be, and she’s guilty.
I for one am now apprehensive about declaring what justice should be in this case.”
I guess no one wants to address what I wrote before, which is: if she did not kill her children, get on the stand and testify to that. Or testify “my husband tried to kill me by slashing my wrists, stabbing my neck and throwing me out a window”. If I knew I didn’t kill my children. I would demand to be put on the stand.
You don’t understand how ambien works. Recently a husband woke up and his wife was standing at the end of their bed, holding a butcher knife.
I told my dr I wanted to come off it, because I suddenly saw myself, in the middle of the night eating. I had gained weight and couldn’t figure out why….I’m not a big eater. But a flash of memory came to me that I had been standing in the kitchen eating a Moonpie in the middle of the night.
He told me that a nurse who works at the hospital where he sees patients woke up with her pajamas wet from the waist down. She had gone for a walk in her sleep and walked in a pond on their property. She ‘had a dream’, and woke up and realized…..it wasn’t a dream.
Is there a claim that she was under the influence of Ambien at the time of the murders? Any evidence? Being prescribed something doesn’t mean you took it.
60% of men are remarried or in a serious relationship within 24 months of losing a spouse (divorce or death), and the median legth of time for a man to remarry after divorce is only about 3.7 years. Nearly all men who ever remarry have done so within 5 years.
Lindsay did admit to the killings to a number of people including the hospital chaplain, a psychologist and multiple psychiatrists, and in her civil lawsuit for medical malpractice against the doctors who prescribed all those meds. She simply never gave a formal written or recorded confession. That is not the same as never admitting to the act. Because her legal strategy relied upon being found 'not guilty by reason of insanity', a confession of guilt would have complicated that defense strategy. Legally, she admitted to the act but denied guilt. When her lawyer tried to bifurcate the trial, he stated in the motion that she would formally stipulate in writing that she had caused the deaths. Then the trial would only have to determine her sanity rather than guilt and sanity, meaning her lawyer might be able to prevent the jury from seeing some of the most damning evidence like the 911 call that captured Patrick's horrific screams when he discovered his dead babies, or the autopsy photos showing the abuse the babies suffered.
I'd also like to point out the danger of thinking that a child's death is a financial benefit to a parent. That is a dangerous precedent without any proof to back that up as a motive. Did you really sccidentally lose control of your car that resulted in the death of your kids or were you just wanting to get rid of the financial burden?
Except she was never psychotic (diagnosed as being psychotic) before. Psychosis only ever came up in the trial and she was allegedly only psychotic for those 18 minutes.
Truly. I have listened to quite a few people who "watched the entire trial" and all come away with more sympathy for Lindsey but different opinions on Patrick. I don't have it in me to listen to it all....
that's right! and there needs to be more info about support groups, or ability to put kids in respite care for a short time, or like here, we have a "crisis nursery" for parents who need a time out for themselves before they do something stupid.
I am not really interested in this thing, other than reading posts by people I follow, and the odd post substack recommends. I don’t remember even hearing about this when it happened. Did it even make the news back then?
But I just have to say, “Wow!” I started following you when I heard you on Dr. Karin’s podcast and was impressed with the things you said. And this post is further confirmation that I was correct in my assessment.
I have not read a take like this from anyone else, and I admire that you sought out information yourself and weren’t content to receive a pre-packaged narrative.
This was a very interesting post, and I commend you for posting what will surely bother lots of people who expect you to just spout the same talking points.
I appreciate the kind words, Marcy! I really did struggle with posting this, because I KNOW lots of people don't want to consider any other option. I guess they're not my people. :)
well, I believe the important thing is that we are entitled to our own opinions. This whole thing is a mystery. Marcy, I feel the same. Is there any concrete proof, finger prints on the tools used to strangle the kiddos.
I dunno, all of this reminds me of the crazy shows hubbs and I watch on Britbox or such. One example, 2026 psychological thriller TV series titled "Gone"
Pursuing truth is the most important thing, always. It is very difficult to run against the tide and say "wait" when everyone else is rushing to judgement. Your willingness to talk about this is critical and the way it has worked out is a great lesson to all of us. Thank you for being willing to revisit your own opinions. That sets the example for all of us.
The media coverage was so dedicated to a "narrative" as many others have pointed out that no one questioned anything else. No real discussion of the doctors who supplied the thirteen drugs to her. No blame on the psychiatric professionals who heard her worries about her own mental state. Nothing but discussion about how this woman should not be held accountable for murdering her children, "because female". I never heard one single news report that presented any of the evidence you provided in the links or any suggestion that Patrick or anyone else may have done it.
We may never know for sure what happened but the bigger problem is the ongoing psyop to use every single thing to move the American public into supporting the destruction of the nation through social division. Please keep up the good work and keep reminding us not to let the media shape our judgments.
it is really hard to go against the tide, thank god for Jenna and others like her who are willing to take a second, or a third - or 8 hours of looking - to get to the truth.
Marcy—I like your phrasing of ‘pre-packaged narrative’. We have been fed so many, probably beginning with JFK, that I, for one, am beyond bloated and getting ready for a cleanse. Thank you and thanks to Jenna!
Hopefully there is an investigation to either exonerate or tie Patrick to the heinous murders. Then, a new trial. This case has become a national referendum on the mental health of women in general. We better get this right.
Yes, it has become that. But what it should have become is a referendum on how the prosecution wasn't required to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I honestly believe there will be. The police stood down and didn't do an investigation at all. Patrick should have been a suspect. Why they heck did they not even test what was in the lemonade cup?
I think it's because Patrick's new wife, Rachel Danis, is the daughter of Roy Danis who is the biz partner of Edgar Bronfman Jr of the Bronfman Crime Family. It's racketeering!
Kash Patel has been talking about the RICO Act so let's see what happens. This whole thing will get unwound.
Maybe Trump contaminated the jury pool on purpose. Redd just said this morning on GMA he wanted a pardon!
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It seems unreasonable to me to suspect Patrick murdered his children and made a very ineffectual attempt to kill her, when she was the one with psychological issues and had said she had thoughts of harming her kids. Oh, and isn't he on video at the store and restaurant while the kids were being strangled to death?
Hahahahaha my whole "argument" was that we were fed a single narrative. I listed every claim that originated with Patrick (and included links for anyone who wanted to verify them). Clearly you have a very busy life, so feel free to get back to enjoying that!
it's not about proving, or even suggesting, that Patrick did it. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the woman on trial. You don't have to prove that someone else did it in order to have a reasonable doubt that the person on trial did it.
Play out the logic: Patrick kills the kids, goes upstairs and tries to kill Lindsay by making it look she committed suicide, throws her out a window, sees she’s not dead, goes downstairs, the. outside and calls 911 BEFORE she expires. Why not wait until she’s dead? Ridiculous.
And? Did they call 911? If he tried to kill her, after all that demonic shit he did, why bother tossing her out a window? Let her exsanguinate inside the house. Problem solved.
Just playing devil’s advocate here in “playing it out”: maybe because he couldn’t let too much time pass between when they could place him at the house and when he finally called, because then he will be questioned “why’d you wait so long to call?” It was less risky to gamble with the police and hoping they found her dead or she is unable to be resuscitated.
I honestly have become confused after being adamant she deserves the electric chair.
If this whole thing WERE a psyop from the beginning, they KNEW we were ripe for a “male hero” and primed to come down on lunatic women who would support her.
I’m confused how so little of what Jenna discovered was revealed to the public during the trial. And the majority of the public trusted that what was reported was accurate and made their opinions. So either our justice system is failing miserably at getting to the truth and is no longer reliable, or it DID get to the reasonable doubt and the media once again failed us in letting us see why.
Or, it’s exactly as we have seen it to be, and she’s guilty.
I for one am now apprehensive about declaring what justice should be in this case.
Same. It makes me be mad at myself for being so easily swayed to popular opinion, when instead I should be like “Have I been presented ALL the facts?” But the jury has been given more than we have, number one, and I trust Jesus number two. (Or maybe should be vice a versa!)
This entire fiasco could’ve been avoided if she took the stand. The way you counter “Patrick said” is for YOU to say. Now we are in a “he said/she said” situation, allowing jurors to determine who is more credible.
Also, why does everyone seem to be glossing over the fact that she signed an affidavit attesting to having murdered her three children? If you didn’t do it, or were crazy when you did it, or you don’t remember doing it, do NOT sign it. You are under no obligation to do so, you can refuse it and make your defense team defend you another way.
Listening to the three jurors last night changed my opinion once again. They all knew and understood she visciously murdered her kids. They just didn’t believe she should be held accountable. That kind of put to rest the ideas that she might not have done it, because a bunch of Karens looking for any way to excuse her are not disagreeing at all that she did it. If they thought she didn’t they would have been saying so all through that interview and why. They saw everything during the trial and don’t dispute she killed them. They just don’t think she was guilty because of her mental state. I was disgusted by their nonchalance about it.
Also, it was not the lone juror that didn’t follow the law, it was those women. They agreed to what she did but wanted to find her innocent so she could get help. 🤦🏼♀️
And this is the best point I’ve seen made about what we discovered during that interview: (not mine but an account on X described it)
“What everyone is overlooking about the Lindsay Clancy juror interviews is that multiple nurses acted as experts on medication in the jury room to convince 3/4 guilty voters to switch to not guilty. Jurors are expressly prohibited from acting as unvetted experts in deliberations”
They claimed the lone juror violated rules when in actuality they did. Their expertise was not given under sworn testimony. It played too big of a role in their decision, if not the primary role.
That's why the term "reasonable doubt" is used. There is always room for a little bit of doubt / error. We need to make sure that chance that we are wrong is vanishingly tiny so an innocent person is virtually never convicted.
Certainly I've said it before but I'd rather see a hundred thousand guilty people go free than to put one innocent person in jail. Our system is so horribly flawed, and now with "deep fakes" nearly impossible to trust "evidence", that I see errors in our justice system as a far, far bigger threat than criminal behavior.
Well they have the most likely culprit on trial. This isn’t a trial for anybody else and trying to make it about others is not following our laws. She DID admit to doing it no matter what the hair splitters say. She made the choice to say she did it and she didn’t take the stand to defend her innocence. The jury ALSO says she did it, they just don’t think she should have to pay for doing it.
I think it’s sad that the defense can do what they are doing so that most people are not thinking of those three precious lost lives.
It’s also sad to think that the criminal behavior is less of a concern than all the circus.
My comments don't really apply specifically to this trial. I have not followed this at all beyond skimming Jenna's articles and seeing a few random posts on Social Media. I refuse to make judgements on something I know almost nothing about.
Things got weird for me when I started siding with the pink-clad AWFLs. I can’t even remember where I read that she confessed, but it goes to show, you can’t trust anyone to tell the untarnished truth. “Do your own research” isn’t limited to the Plandemic!
Edgar Cayce said that when we die, we feel the feelings of those we loved and those we harmed. Even if this theory is incorrect, it would do us all some good to chew on that thought.
21st century America has become a spiritually vacuous society where too many people do not want to honor the Ten Commandments, one of which is to not murder people (and that’s murder, not kill in self-defense).
Those brain drugs come with warnings that we've all heard, "may cause death."
Not into the 10C or org religion, but "don't murder" tends to be a pretty universal moral across the board from the start of human civilisation.
I like EC but I'm also really into Seth (Seth Speaks), and i recall him saying something once about how the drugs we use can mess with our spiritual connections, esp those psychiatric ones. Something about how we like them because they keep people with those issues quiet and pliable but that it stunts their ability to actually heal and not only mentally but spiritually lobotomizes the individual.
I used to think that way bc the Christian dogma of the organized religions never made sense to me (whereas Buddha is easier to understand) and then I started reading the heretics like Origen of Alexandria who made more sense and do not conflict with the laws of the universe. But something was missing. When I started to really study the teachings of Jesus, I realized it’s the philosophy of Christ that was missing and that God is within us and that we are supposed to love God, which means to honor the 10Cs. So what you are really saying “not into the 10Cs” is that you are ok with stealing, disrespecting parents, being envious (socialists suffer greatly from coveting), etc.
And now I realize no other philosopher said to love our enemies. That’s a hard concept but once I understood the depth, it’s a beautiful philosophy for a more positive life. Good luck!
Damn it Jenna, you’ve dragged me down this rabbit hole.
I’m not really sure why the cops didn’t look into this. However, it appears that the kids were alive when Clancy sent Patrick out to pick up meds and dinner.
If Patrick did it, surely his movements could be (have been) traced, the time of death of all the children estimated and the possibility that he offed them all considered. The evidence (such as it is) doesn’t seem to conform to that timeline. Consider that he either had to commit the murders then go out, come back and then call the cops. Remember that one child died after the EMTs arrived. I don’t think that timeline would make sense.
The other alternative supporting the “Patrick did it” theory would be that he got meds and dinner came back, offed them all and then called the cops. So, the key here is how long between his arrival and the 911 call? Since she allegedly texted him while he was out that would show her alive at the time. Was the text verified?
The theory that seems more reasonable to me it that Clancy had it out for her husband and decided to destroy the family to get back at him.
But, the police should have investigated both parents for the killings.
In any case an absolute tragedy. In my extended family we’ve had our contentious marriages/partnerships. But everyone looks out for the kids and morns the loss of a child. I can’t imagine the evil that led to this situation. I thank God that I can’t. And, I’m glad that I wasn’t on the jury.
Having not your patience for investigation I pushed the claim that Patrick did this into an AI and got this answer:
Patrick’s role and the claim that he killed the family
Patrick testified as a prosecution witness. He described her as a dedicated mother who later spiraled, said he did not understand psychosis at the time, and has publicly framed her as ill rather than evil and said he forgives her. He later sued some of her doctors, alleging negligent treatment contributed to the deaths. He has remarried. Investigators collected his devices as well and reconstructed the evening with video, phones, and communications. He was ruled out as a suspect. 
Online theories (especially on TikTok and X) claim he strangled the children, framed Lindsay, drugged her, or pushed her from the window. Common talking points include DNA on the bands, lack of her fingerprints, a “missing” 15 minutes before he appears on CVS video, later remarriage, and skepticism that a mother would do this. 
Those claims do not hold up against the public record:
• Video places him at two businesses during the only window in which the children could have been killed after he last saw them alive. She answered his call from CVS while he was gone.
• She has repeatedly described herself as the actor to her husband and to multiple clinicians. Her lawyers have not claimed she did not do it.
• Scene reconstruction (blood in the bedroom she occupied, her injuries, her DNA outside, stair data on her devices, children last seen with her) matches her being the only adult in the house.
• Mixed family DNA on household bands plus his handling of the bodies after discovery does not place him at the scene during the killings.
• Drive time, parking, looking for a product, and a short phone call easily account for the interval before he walks into the CVS camera. There is no corroborated “mystery gap” large enough for him to return home, kill three children, stage a suicide attempt, and get to the store on camera.
• No forensic, digital, or witness evidence has been presented that he was home, that he used the bands, or that he inflicted her injuries. Police executed many warrants and reconstructed phones and computers.
A frame-up would require him to leave, return unseen, kill three children with household bands, cut her and throw her from a window in a way that produced her injuries and DNA outside, lock the bedroom, leave again, appear on two stores’ cameras, and have her later consistently confess in ways that match the scene—while her own defense team treats her as the actor. That is not a reasonable reading of the evidence. Disbelief that a mother could do this, anger at gaps in postpartum care, and selective clips of a long trial explain why the theories spread; they are not a substitute for proof. 
The hard remaining question in the case is mental state and criminal responsibility, which is why the jury deadlocked—not who physically killed the children.
I have to admit that Ai is extremely impressive in situations like this. I still have concerns about it being controlled by nefarious actors, but still....
Sounds like they were also a pro at erasing crucial physical evidence that would prove Lindsey did it such as conclusive dna evidence on the bands and her fingerprints on the knife she supposedly mutilated herself with in a fit of child killing insanity.
Abssnce of evidence does require explanation however , especially in a case where it seriously contradicts the desired official narrative in which you seek to convict another human being, possibly for life. Someone’s say-so is not enough to convict when the physical evidence is absent.
Even if you set aside everything Lindsay later said, a third-party killer is still a very poor fit for the physical and digital record. Nothing in the investigation has pointed to an unknown person in the house that evening.
What a stranger would have had to do. Patrick left around 5:15 p.m. after seeing the children alive with Lindsay. She answered his call from CVS around 5:33–5:34 p.m. He is on store cameras at CVS (~5:32–5:37) and ThreeV (~5:54–5:55). He is back shortly after 6:00 p.m. to a silent house, a locked bedroom, blood and an open window upstairs, Lindsay on the ground outside, and the three children in the basement.
A third party would have needed to enter a private home unnoticed, kill three children with household exercise bands while Lindsay was present and able to take a short phone call, then either:
• force or induce her cuts and a second-story jump that left her DNA on exterior shingles, or
• leave her to do that herself immediately afterward,
and then exit before Patrick returned—without forced-entry evidence that investigators highlighted, without a non-family perpetrator DNA profile being presented as the actor, and without anyone seeing another adult. That is a lot of invisible work in a tight window.
What the forensics actually show. Band DNA was mixed family DNA (Lindsay, Patrick, the children), which is expected on gear the household used and after Patrick removed the bands when he found the children. Some samples included Lindsay; none were presented as an unknown killer’s profile that excluded the family. Usable fingerprints were not recovered from the textured bands or the bloody knife, which is common and is not the same as “someone else did it.” Blood outside the window was attributed to Lindsay. Autopsies showed ligature asphyxia, not a struggle pattern that suggested an attacking stranger.
What the devices show without relying on her words. Her phone and Apple Watch place movement in the house in that window (stairs climbed around 5:03 and 5:33; last unlock ~5:13; last heart-rate ping ~5:23). That is consistent with one adult already inside moving between levels. It is not consistent with an outsider arriving after Patrick left and operating independently of her devices.
What is missing that you would expect if someone else did it. No reported break-in. No neighbor or camera account of another adult coming or going in that half-hour. No unidentified suspect DNA treated as the source of the killings. Police executed multiple warrants and reconstructed phones, computers, and store video; they treated Lindsay as the only adult home. Patrick’s alibi is external video, not just his word.
Disregarding her later statements removes one category of evidence. It does not create a second adult in the house, erase the CVS call, erase the store cameras, or turn family DNA on household bands into an intruder. A third-party theory remains speculation that has to fight the timeline and the scene rather than explain them. The live dispute in the case has been her mental state, not whether an unknown person was there.
Thank you for your deep dive. I think people needed to read this. People tend to believe the headlines in MSM and think it’s fact or the truth. Which is surprising to me considering we selectively don’t generally believe the MSM. Like I had said previously, I had watched most of the trial and came away with exactly the same opinion that you so clearly suggested. My heart breaks for those children and I have too many unanswered questions.
Oof. That information shifts the frame a little. Thanks for doing the watching and reporting. No way I have the stomach for it. Agree that whoever killed the children must be held accountable. Even the mentally unwell must be accountable for their actions; otherwise we stop defining wrong as wrong and start relabeling it as mental illness. Where does that end?
Wow! My daughter watched it all and has said Patrick did it. I thought she was nuts, but not anymore. Thanks for this. Just glad those babies are enjoying the beauty of heaven, safe from these two parents forever.
If this is the case her lawyer did her a HUGE disservice by going for insanity plea. He should have spent more time and effort investigating Patrick. And did either of them have marks on their hands from the bands used to strangle? Inquiring minds. I’ve stayed out of this convo exactly bc I didn’t do the work of looking at everything but the psychos posting vids about how their kids are vampires really skewer the whole narrative.
Her lawyer actually caught him lying multiple times and called him out. I think his entire strategy was "not guilty" at any cost; if it had to be insanity, or if he could establish enough "reasonable doubt" by poking holes in Patrick's testimony... At first I thought he (Reddington) was a bit bumbling but after watching as much as I did, I think he was VERY strategic. It was quite fascinating to watch, actually.
Thanks a lot Jenna!! I love a good episode of Forensic Files and now I’m going to have to actually pay attention to this. If there’s one thing I hate it’s when police/DA get tunnel vision and don’t properly investigate a case , especially if it’s because of laziness or WORSE bc someone important knows the person actually guilty or has a grudge etc. I don’t usually watch too much of anything but this one actually deserves a look. If for no other reason than more reasonable and rational people need to be a voice and not just all the wackos. Although you’ve pointed out more than a few who see what’s happening!
When I was in litigation, the partner I worked for liked to look a little bumbling and not too slick...so the jury trusted him.
it looks like he really is a legal genius, this is better than Perry Mason or Columbo - I can't wait to see the documentary where they lay it all out and prove it was actually him, and they make all of these people look like idiots for believing otherwise.
This column has made me feel like an idiot. I had begun yesterday to question if he was trying to get out of paying alimony and child support because he was going to leave her…….and this kinda makes me think……yeah. Maybe that’s exactly what happened.
I bet that is exactly how it started... men who want to escape their marriages, often do really insane things.. including trying to pin all the issues on the wife.
And the opposite also happens.
I am a woman born and will die a woman, and women will accuse men of anything and be believed.
I am one of those women who has watched other women for 75 years. And we women can either make a man happy or we can make life a living hell, and the last generation is the most abusive crop of women I have ever seen.
Hellywood has been denigrating men for years, portraying them as clumsy oafs. And these feminazi’s are from the pits of hell.
But I have to admit I had already thought of the possibility that this man could be the monster.
It's gonna be a great book and movie for sure.
I think you're probably right on this. He was trying to establish reasonable doubt that she did it. However, that is not what Redd is saying -- according to Google.
Google says Redd was going for insanity. I call BS.
I just asked Google (Gemini) why Redd wanted to bifurcate the trial and Gemini says it was in order to avoid people wanting to punish Lindsay -- after seeing all the evidence.
I don't think so though. I think Redd knew that they would never allow him to bifurcate the trial. Gemini agreed - chances of that were zero.
I think you are right - that Redd was showing the jury all the holes.
Did you hear about the DA showing up and sitting right in front of the jury box the last day, staring at them? One lady on TikTok said the lone juror was probably paid off. IDK how she knew that or if she even did but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
Interesting!!
I saw some comment about the betting markets... that if he stood his ground, even place a $1k bet, he could make $500k.. allegedly, of course.. but would not surprise me one bit..
At this point I don’t have a clue what really happened. But I was fascinated by the recording (real?) of one juror who was lambasting the holdout because "he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children"
He worked with what that judge allowed him to have.
Having done some research I’ve concluded that it’s bullshit to point to Patrick as the perpetrator of this crime. Lindsay’s own attorney stated this theory was “horrific” and inconsistent with the evidence. Therefore (and since no strangers dna was on scene) she is the only other person capable. Plus she DID admit to doing it to psychiatrists and a counselor according to Grok synopsis of the events. If you question it thoroughly and with an eye towards exoneration of Lindsay the evidence just isn’t there. I’m sorry but the truth is she killed her kids and no amount of psychiatric excuses will ever make it not guilty.
If Ms. MCCarthy has summarized the situation correctly, we know absolutely nothing of what Mrs. Clancy has said herself, other than that she signed a pre-written confession?
Interesting, but I'm 99.9% sure she killed the kids.
I do believe the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense is a legitimate verdict, and it MAY be the correct one here.
I'd have no problem with Mrs. Clancy being found not guilty by reason of insanity, and allowed to go free after a moderate amount of time in a mental hospital, PROVIDED she's surgically sterilized.
I've done a substack comparing this case to the upcoming Andrea Shaw case. Interesting -the ladies that support Mrs. Clancy almost all want Mrs. Shaw locked up for life or executed. There doesn't seem to be a lot of original thought going on with this group. https://skepticalactuary1348.substack.com/p/correction-lindsay-clancy-compared
I’m thinking he didn’t want to have to pay child support and alimony.
Does “accountable” mean the electric chair, or a forensic unit in a psych hospital?
I have to say Psyop when the information unfolds in a way that causes conclusions to change. You never get the full picture all at once. I believe that is intentional to leverage the fact that many people are unable to change their view once they have committed to it. They can't admit being wrong even if for a short time. It creates turmoil and arguments and division.
Thank you Jenna for always being able to change your mind based on facts, not previous assumptions. Thank you for digging in to a difficult subject that none of us want to spend the time on. It is what keeps the truth alive.
Just like what has happened with covid. People cannot admit they were wrong.
It’s tough to admit being wrong. That’s why I never form opinion on guilt or innocence unless I’ve followed a case thoroughly, and watched the full trial, if possible. Doing otherwise is simply accepting the conclusion we’ve been assigned, and that is never acceptable to me
exactly.
Yes, thank you Jenna! I am always happy to look at the facts as they undoubtedly tell the story.
I will look at the links and come back with comments!
Well,something is definitely off,but, do we EVER get “the full picture at once “ in something like this? No. Layers like an onion.
It is more than just getting new information. It is getting only one side consistently and then when everyone thinks they know it all, they get a completely different story that makes the initial one suspect as heck.
An honest reporting would be "there are two suspects, the husband and the wife" but we only got the wife is guilty because the husband said so.
Yes. But,in this case,for some unknown reason,the husband WASNT a suspect. That is why the various theories are circulating…I definitely lean towards this being ANOTHER distraction…I’m not sure what it is we are being distracted from…
That there are people taking over the world. Using our investments to buy up realestate, companies and governments. Meanwhile the citizens are being turned into slaves and starved and exploited.
AI is going to replace all jobs and these people will claim that they own it (even though it was built by others smarter than them). What could be a future where everything is free and a single thought can make it a reality is being hidden from us while they and their greed oppress the 8 billion other people on this planet.
so there's that... ;-)
I have sometimes wondered how “they “ took so much of our creative “God spark” away… I absolutely believe we are more powerful than we know…soooo,remember,what you spend your energy thinking about,you are probably creating…use your power wisely. Namaste.
It isn't you or me that is the problem. There are enough citizens that are apathetic and going through the motions that the system feeds off of. I don't participate, but others keep it alive...
🙌
I no longer have any clue as to what happened that awful day except that three lovely children are dead. Was the lone juror a hero or an obstructionist? I thought a hero, but now I don't know. All I do know is that none of us know. Whoever did kill those beautiful babies will one day stand before God.
🎯🎯🎯
Well stated, as a father of 7 and losing one after birth, I cannot imagine this scenario;
She was a Nurse? Anti Pchyco drugs? Patrick said? Don’t care; three beautiful babies dead;
Hear, hear!
“Changing your mind requires a certain tolerance for discovering—and admitting—that you were spectacularly wrong. Not everyone enjoys that as much as I do.” 🤗
Isn’t it freeing, though? I’m so grateful that earlier in life I went through a couple of ‘oh shit’ crises where I had to tear up some old scripts and then write some new ones. I’ve liked myself better since then.
Being able and willing to admit you’re wrong is what marks you as a real truth-seeker. Keep doing your seeking and finding out loud! You have a delightfully unique voice that this sorry society really needs right now.
I sincerely appreciate that, Andrew! :)
Another reason I chose to follow Jenna!
It requires humility to admit that you could have been or were wrong. And that is not a very common trait.
My grandma’s catch phrase for ‘shit happens’ was ‘it teaches you humility’.
I love that about Jenna. Changing your mind or acknowledging I was wrong or second best, I MIGHT be wrong, takes courage and it feels good! :)
Like you I thought she was guilty and I don't excuse murder because of hormones. Then I saw that he very quickly remarried after quickly going on a trip after the murders and then his new father in law bought the newlyweds a house. And that she never really confessed. There's that old thing of "who benefits?" and he lost his kids but he clearly benefitted financially and if he was tired of dealing with a mentally challenged wife, he also benefitted. Now I wonder if he saw that previous murder in Ireland by the woman who also was a nurse and murdered her 3 children and the husband came home to find them. Maybe he did a copycat crime. Not sure at all that she did it now.
Play out the logic: Patrick kills the kids, goes upstairs and tries to kill Lindsay by making it look she committed suicide, throws her out a window, sees she’s not dead, goes downstairs, then outside and calls 911 BEFORE she expires. Why not wait until she’s dead? Ridiculous.
If you watch the trial, the timeline doesn't add up. That's the point. (But HE SAYS so and so, so that becomes the story.) Also from my response to your same comment above:
The neighbor saw her in the yard at 5:50. This was on the news. https://www.tiktok.com/@cc.forensictherapist/video/7682184120868424991?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
I asked Gemini how can they be sure the kids were alive when he left to go to the stores. The answer was not convincing at all. It said they would have screamed and she would have heard. They did not pinpoint the exact time of death of the children, just within a reasonable time frame. So theoretically she could have gone to the basement and seen them dead and decided to jump from the horror of seeing them. The watch shows her movements but does not prove she committed the murders. Gemini admitted that. So, with the timeline discrepancies...I would have to go with reasonable doubt at this point.
The youngest baby still had a faintly detectable heartbeat and his heart was restarted successfully at the hospital after he went into cardiac arrest. He died three days later. There is no physical way he survived that type of strangulation described by the medical examiner and ER physicians for almost an hour. The strangulation must have occurred just shortly before Patrick's arrival, which matches Lindsay's movements recorded on her watch.
I'd like to see the exact spot where she landed. Everyone talks about her paralysis, but almost no one is asking how her thyroid gland was shattered. Unless she landed on something very hard, and her thyroid hit exactly on that, we need another explanation.
If you’re going to post your thoughts exactly the same in two different places, those of us replying to those thoughts also have to paste our reply in both those places. It would be easier if you said what you thought in one spot and left it at that.
My reply to the first time you posted this:
“Just playing devil’s advocate here in “playing it out”: maybe because he couldn’t let too much time pass between when they could place him at the house and when he finally called, because then he will be questioned “why’d you wait so long to call?” It was less risky to gamble with the police and hoping they found her dead or she is unable to be resuscitated.
I honestly have become confused after being adamant she deserves the electric chair.
If this whole thing WERE a psyop from the beginning, they KNEW we were ripe for a “male hero” and primed to come down on lunatic women who would support her.
I’m confused how so little of what Jenna discovered was revealed to the public during the trial. And the majority of the public trusted that what was reported was accurate and made their opinions. So either our justice system is failing miserably at getting to the truth and is no longer reliable, or it DID get to the reasonable doubt and the media once again failed us in letting us see why.
Or, it’s exactly as we have seen it to be, and she’s guilty.
I for one am now apprehensive about declaring what justice should be in this case.”
The crime isn't necessarily the psyop, the coverage is...
Yes it does seem to be captured
BTW, can you hear me?
I guess no one wants to address what I wrote before, which is: if she did not kill her children, get on the stand and testify to that. Or testify “my husband tried to kill me by slashing my wrists, stabbing my neck and throwing me out a window”. If I knew I didn’t kill my children. I would demand to be put on the stand.
My guess is she has no memory of what happened.
Then demonstrate that to the jury.
And I agree with you. But you said “play out the logic…” and so I did. It doesn’t make sense that way either.
I think a lot of what they chose to do or not to do, such as not put her on the stand, was defense strategy.
And I too would demand to speak for myself on the stand and defend myself. But then I’m sane, and she’s not. Which muddies the water.
Even if you are insane, demonstrate that to the jury. You want develop reasonable doubt or to show how nuts you are, get on the stand and have at it.
Regardless of the judge’s instructions, many jurors look at a defendant who refuses to take the stand as guilty.
Why is she still "insane" or still suffering from Postpartum Depression 3 years + later?
Flippin Jersey,
You don’t understand how ambien works. Recently a husband woke up and his wife was standing at the end of their bed, holding a butcher knife.
I told my dr I wanted to come off it, because I suddenly saw myself, in the middle of the night eating. I had gained weight and couldn’t figure out why….I’m not a big eater. But a flash of memory came to me that I had been standing in the kitchen eating a Moonpie in the middle of the night.
He told me that a nurse who works at the hospital where he sees patients woke up with her pajamas wet from the waist down. She had gone for a walk in her sleep and walked in a pond on their property. She ‘had a dream’, and woke up and realized…..it wasn’t a dream.
Ambien is a dangerous drug.
Is there a claim that she was under the influence of Ambien at the time of the murders? Any evidence? Being prescribed something doesn’t mean you took it.
It has been in everything I have read, yes. And Jenna even referred to it.
My question to myself is “Why did I trust the media on this when I KNOW THEY ARE LIARS???!!!”
I feel like an old fool.
None of this was 'revealed' to the public because it is fabricated bologna. See my comment to Jenna: https://jennasside.rocks/p/patrick-said/comment/333243457
Here’s a link : https://x.com/tonyxtwo/status/2097356716698734954?s=46
60% of men are remarried or in a serious relationship within 24 months of losing a spouse (divorce or death), and the median legth of time for a man to remarry after divorce is only about 3.7 years. Nearly all men who ever remarry have done so within 5 years.
Lindsay did admit to the killings to a number of people including the hospital chaplain, a psychologist and multiple psychiatrists, and in her civil lawsuit for medical malpractice against the doctors who prescribed all those meds. She simply never gave a formal written or recorded confession. That is not the same as never admitting to the act. Because her legal strategy relied upon being found 'not guilty by reason of insanity', a confession of guilt would have complicated that defense strategy. Legally, she admitted to the act but denied guilt. When her lawyer tried to bifurcate the trial, he stated in the motion that she would formally stipulate in writing that she had caused the deaths. Then the trial would only have to determine her sanity rather than guilt and sanity, meaning her lawyer might be able to prevent the jury from seeing some of the most damning evidence like the 911 call that captured Patrick's horrific screams when he discovered his dead babies, or the autopsy photos showing the abuse the babies suffered.
I'd also like to point out the danger of thinking that a child's death is a financial benefit to a parent. That is a dangerous precedent without any proof to back that up as a motive. Did you really sccidentally lose control of your car that resulted in the death of your kids or were you just wanting to get rid of the financial burden?
My first thought was that I wished there was this much media and human engagement during the Fauci hearings.
You don’t leave a psychotic, drug impaired mother alone with her children.
Take it from there…
Except she was never psychotic (diagnosed as being psychotic) before. Psychosis only ever came up in the trial and she was allegedly only psychotic for those 18 minutes.
A lot to wrap your head around…just sad, so sad.
Truly. I have listened to quite a few people who "watched the entire trial" and all come away with more sympathy for Lindsey but different opinions on Patrick. I don't have it in me to listen to it all....
that's right! and there needs to be more info about support groups, or ability to put kids in respite care for a short time, or like here, we have a "crisis nursery" for parents who need a time out for themselves before they do something stupid.
I am not really interested in this thing, other than reading posts by people I follow, and the odd post substack recommends. I don’t remember even hearing about this when it happened. Did it even make the news back then?
But I just have to say, “Wow!” I started following you when I heard you on Dr. Karin’s podcast and was impressed with the things you said. And this post is further confirmation that I was correct in my assessment.
I have not read a take like this from anyone else, and I admire that you sought out information yourself and weren’t content to receive a pre-packaged narrative.
This was a very interesting post, and I commend you for posting what will surely bother lots of people who expect you to just spout the same talking points.
I appreciate the kind words, Marcy! I really did struggle with posting this, because I KNOW lots of people don't want to consider any other option. I guess they're not my people. :)
You’re not for everyone
well, I believe the important thing is that we are entitled to our own opinions. This whole thing is a mystery. Marcy, I feel the same. Is there any concrete proof, finger prints on the tools used to strangle the kiddos.
I dunno, all of this reminds me of the crazy shows hubbs and I watch on Britbox or such. One example, 2026 psychological thriller TV series titled "Gone"
Pursuing truth is the most important thing, always. It is very difficult to run against the tide and say "wait" when everyone else is rushing to judgement. Your willingness to talk about this is critical and the way it has worked out is a great lesson to all of us. Thank you for being willing to revisit your own opinions. That sets the example for all of us.
The media coverage was so dedicated to a "narrative" as many others have pointed out that no one questioned anything else. No real discussion of the doctors who supplied the thirteen drugs to her. No blame on the psychiatric professionals who heard her worries about her own mental state. Nothing but discussion about how this woman should not be held accountable for murdering her children, "because female". I never heard one single news report that presented any of the evidence you provided in the links or any suggestion that Patrick or anyone else may have done it.
We may never know for sure what happened but the bigger problem is the ongoing psyop to use every single thing to move the American public into supporting the destruction of the nation through social division. Please keep up the good work and keep reminding us not to let the media shape our judgments.
it is really hard to go against the tide, thank god for Jenna and others like her who are willing to take a second, or a third - or 8 hours of looking - to get to the truth.
They are not your people. I am your people though! We are HERE! LOL! I was watching clips of the trial at 3 in the morning.
Ha! Yay! :)
Marcy—I like your phrasing of ‘pre-packaged narrative’. We have been fed so many, probably beginning with JFK, that I, for one, am beyond bloated and getting ready for a cleanse. Thank you and thanks to Jenna!
Hopefully there is an investigation to either exonerate or tie Patrick to the heinous murders. Then, a new trial. This case has become a national referendum on the mental health of women in general. We better get this right.
Yes, it has become that. But what it should have become is a referendum on how the prosecution wasn't required to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I honestly believe there will be. The police stood down and didn't do an investigation at all. Patrick should have been a suspect. Why they heck did they not even test what was in the lemonade cup?
I think it's because Patrick's new wife, Rachel Danis, is the daughter of Roy Danis who is the biz partner of Edgar Bronfman Jr of the Bronfman Crime Family. It's racketeering!
Kash Patel has been talking about the RICO Act so let's see what happens. This whole thing will get unwound.
Maybe Trump contaminated the jury pool on purpose. Redd just said this morning on GMA he wanted a pardon!
"beyond a reasonable doubt" has to be the foundation of our legal system. We can not convict people based on "it seems like she did it".
Wow. That's all I can say. Except, there's a LOT of suspicious male behavior in this whole scenario. Thanks for bringing it to light.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It seems unreasonable to me to suspect Patrick murdered his children and made a very ineffectual attempt to kill her, when she was the one with psychological issues and had said she had thoughts of harming her kids. Oh, and isn't he on video at the store and restaurant while the kids were being strangled to death?
Maybe click on some of the links😉
No need to. Patrick said . . .
🫢
https://x.com/tonyxtwo/status/2097356716698734954?s=46
The other option is to ACTUALLY WATCH THE TRIAL, from which most of the links were pulled. SMH.
Hahahahaha my whole "argument" was that we were fed a single narrative. I listed every claim that originated with Patrick (and included links for anyone who wanted to verify them). Clearly you have a very busy life, so feel free to get back to enjoying that!
Did she say it or did Patrick say she said it? I agree with Jenna-click some of the links.
Agreed. Way too many sketchy things here.
it's not about proving, or even suggesting, that Patrick did it. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" applies to the woman on trial. You don't have to prove that someone else did it in order to have a reasonable doubt that the person on trial did it.
Play out the logic: Patrick kills the kids, goes upstairs and tries to kill Lindsay by making it look she committed suicide, throws her out a window, sees she’s not dead, goes downstairs, the. outside and calls 911 BEFORE she expires. Why not wait until she’s dead? Ridiculous.
The neighbor saw her in the yard at 5:50. This was on the news. https://www.tiktok.com/@cc.forensictherapist/video/7682184120868424991?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc
And? Did they call 911? If he tried to kill her, after all that demonic shit he did, why bother tossing her out a window? Let her exsanguinate inside the house. Problem solved.
No way the neighbor could be mistaken? TBH, I don’t do TikTok, so didn’t see the footage.
Just playing devil’s advocate here in “playing it out”: maybe because he couldn’t let too much time pass between when they could place him at the house and when he finally called, because then he will be questioned “why’d you wait so long to call?” It was less risky to gamble with the police and hoping they found her dead or she is unable to be resuscitated.
I honestly have become confused after being adamant she deserves the electric chair.
If this whole thing WERE a psyop from the beginning, they KNEW we were ripe for a “male hero” and primed to come down on lunatic women who would support her.
I’m confused how so little of what Jenna discovered was revealed to the public during the trial. And the majority of the public trusted that what was reported was accurate and made their opinions. So either our justice system is failing miserably at getting to the truth and is no longer reliable, or it DID get to the reasonable doubt and the media once again failed us in letting us see why.
Or, it’s exactly as we have seen it to be, and she’s guilty.
I for one am now apprehensive about declaring what justice should be in this case.
Same. It makes me be mad at myself for being so easily swayed to popular opinion, when instead I should be like “Have I been presented ALL the facts?” But the jury has been given more than we have, number one, and I trust Jesus number two. (Or maybe should be vice a versa!)
This entire fiasco could’ve been avoided if she took the stand. The way you counter “Patrick said” is for YOU to say. Now we are in a “he said/she said” situation, allowing jurors to determine who is more credible.
Also, why does everyone seem to be glossing over the fact that she signed an affidavit attesting to having murdered her three children? If you didn’t do it, or were crazy when you did it, or you don’t remember doing it, do NOT sign it. You are under no obligation to do so, you can refuse it and make your defense team defend you another way.
Listening to the three jurors last night changed my opinion once again. They all knew and understood she visciously murdered her kids. They just didn’t believe she should be held accountable. That kind of put to rest the ideas that she might not have done it, because a bunch of Karens looking for any way to excuse her are not disagreeing at all that she did it. If they thought she didn’t they would have been saying so all through that interview and why. They saw everything during the trial and don’t dispute she killed them. They just don’t think she was guilty because of her mental state. I was disgusted by their nonchalance about it.
Also, it was not the lone juror that didn’t follow the law, it was those women. They agreed to what she did but wanted to find her innocent so she could get help. 🤦🏼♀️
And this is the best point I’ve seen made about what we discovered during that interview: (not mine but an account on X described it)
“What everyone is overlooking about the Lindsay Clancy juror interviews is that multiple nurses acted as experts on medication in the jury room to convince 3/4 guilty voters to switch to not guilty. Jurors are expressly prohibited from acting as unvetted experts in deliberations”
They claimed the lone juror violated rules when in actuality they did. Their expertise was not given under sworn testimony. It played too big of a role in their decision, if not the primary role.
1000%
It’s also not “beyond ALL doubt” and you can’t claim innocent because “well it seems like it wasn’t her fault”
That's why the term "reasonable doubt" is used. There is always room for a little bit of doubt / error. We need to make sure that chance that we are wrong is vanishingly tiny so an innocent person is virtually never convicted.
Certainly I've said it before but I'd rather see a hundred thousand guilty people go free than to put one innocent person in jail. Our system is so horribly flawed, and now with "deep fakes" nearly impossible to trust "evidence", that I see errors in our justice system as a far, far bigger threat than criminal behavior.
Three dead kids would like a word …
Three dead kids would not want the wrong person to go to jail.
I may disagree with a lot of you here on this one, but I still love ya.
Well they have the most likely culprit on trial. This isn’t a trial for anybody else and trying to make it about others is not following our laws. She DID admit to doing it no matter what the hair splitters say. She made the choice to say she did it and she didn’t take the stand to defend her innocence. The jury ALSO says she did it, they just don’t think she should have to pay for doing it.
I think it’s sad that the defense can do what they are doing so that most people are not thinking of those three precious lost lives.
It’s also sad to think that the criminal behavior is less of a concern than all the circus.
My comments don't really apply specifically to this trial. I have not followed this at all beyond skimming Jenna's articles and seeing a few random posts on Social Media. I refuse to make judgements on something I know almost nothing about.
Thanks for this, Jenna.
Things got weird for me when I started siding with the pink-clad AWFLs. I can’t even remember where I read that she confessed, but it goes to show, you can’t trust anyone to tell the untarnished truth. “Do your own research” isn’t limited to the Plandemic!
Yeah, it was the AWFLs that first caused my brain to go sideways. Now I'm asking if it's possible that those nut jobs might be right.
Wasn’t it in the police report? Where they quoted what she said?
Her confession is on page 20 from her civil lawsuit: https://ibb.co/QjfxmFwR
(Full document: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2026/07/Clancy-Civil-Lawsuit.pdf)
And here is a video of Clancy stipulating to killing her children
https://youtu.be/5lnFKaPJg-M
Here’s a 2024 news article of Clancy pleading insanity
https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/2024/12/16/lindsay-clancy-patrick-cora-dawson-callan-duxbury-ma-attorney-kevin-reddington/77024269007/
Is the logic Jenna has that it was the defense “strategy” to go this route because they feared they couldn’t prove that she didn’t do it??
Edgar Cayce said that when we die, we feel the feelings of those we loved and those we harmed. Even if this theory is incorrect, it would do us all some good to chew on that thought.
21st century America has become a spiritually vacuous society where too many people do not want to honor the Ten Commandments, one of which is to not murder people (and that’s murder, not kill in self-defense).
Those brain drugs come with warnings that we've all heard, "may cause death."
If there is any lesson to be learned from this very tragic story, is it that we should not trust doctors to first, do no harm: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/first-do-no-harm
Edgar Cayce. There’s a name I have not heard for decades. I need to read up on him again.
He was a very interesting man!
Not into the 10C or org religion, but "don't murder" tends to be a pretty universal moral across the board from the start of human civilisation.
I like EC but I'm also really into Seth (Seth Speaks), and i recall him saying something once about how the drugs we use can mess with our spiritual connections, esp those psychiatric ones. Something about how we like them because they keep people with those issues quiet and pliable but that it stunts their ability to actually heal and not only mentally but spiritually lobotomizes the individual.
Makes sense about the drugs.
I used to think that way bc the Christian dogma of the organized religions never made sense to me (whereas Buddha is easier to understand) and then I started reading the heretics like Origen of Alexandria who made more sense and do not conflict with the laws of the universe. But something was missing. When I started to really study the teachings of Jesus, I realized it’s the philosophy of Christ that was missing and that God is within us and that we are supposed to love God, which means to honor the 10Cs. So what you are really saying “not into the 10Cs” is that you are ok with stealing, disrespecting parents, being envious (socialists suffer greatly from coveting), etc.
And now I realize no other philosopher said to love our enemies. That’s a hard concept but once I understood the depth, it’s a beautiful philosophy for a more positive life. Good luck!
Oh Jenna... I'm sending a search and rescue party down that rabbit hole to find ya.
Damn it Jenna, you’ve dragged me down this rabbit hole.
I’m not really sure why the cops didn’t look into this. However, it appears that the kids were alive when Clancy sent Patrick out to pick up meds and dinner.
If Patrick did it, surely his movements could be (have been) traced, the time of death of all the children estimated and the possibility that he offed them all considered. The evidence (such as it is) doesn’t seem to conform to that timeline. Consider that he either had to commit the murders then go out, come back and then call the cops. Remember that one child died after the EMTs arrived. I don’t think that timeline would make sense.
The other alternative supporting the “Patrick did it” theory would be that he got meds and dinner came back, offed them all and then called the cops. So, the key here is how long between his arrival and the 911 call? Since she allegedly texted him while he was out that would show her alive at the time. Was the text verified?
The theory that seems more reasonable to me it that Clancy had it out for her husband and decided to destroy the family to get back at him.
But, the police should have investigated both parents for the killings.
In any case an absolute tragedy. In my extended family we’ve had our contentious marriages/partnerships. But everyone looks out for the kids and morns the loss of a child. I can’t imagine the evil that led to this situation. I thank God that I can’t. And, I’m glad that I wasn’t on the jury.
Having not your patience for investigation I pushed the claim that Patrick did this into an AI and got this answer:
Patrick’s role and the claim that he killed the family
Patrick testified as a prosecution witness. He described her as a dedicated mother who later spiraled, said he did not understand psychosis at the time, and has publicly framed her as ill rather than evil and said he forgives her. He later sued some of her doctors, alleging negligent treatment contributed to the deaths. He has remarried. Investigators collected his devices as well and reconstructed the evening with video, phones, and communications. He was ruled out as a suspect. 
Online theories (especially on TikTok and X) claim he strangled the children, framed Lindsay, drugged her, or pushed her from the window. Common talking points include DNA on the bands, lack of her fingerprints, a “missing” 15 minutes before he appears on CVS video, later remarriage, and skepticism that a mother would do this. 
Those claims do not hold up against the public record:
• Video places him at two businesses during the only window in which the children could have been killed after he last saw them alive. She answered his call from CVS while he was gone.
• She has repeatedly described herself as the actor to her husband and to multiple clinicians. Her lawyers have not claimed she did not do it.
• Scene reconstruction (blood in the bedroom she occupied, her injuries, her DNA outside, stair data on her devices, children last seen with her) matches her being the only adult in the house.
• Mixed family DNA on household bands plus his handling of the bodies after discovery does not place him at the scene during the killings.
• Drive time, parking, looking for a product, and a short phone call easily account for the interval before he walks into the CVS camera. There is no corroborated “mystery gap” large enough for him to return home, kill three children, stage a suicide attempt, and get to the store on camera.
• No forensic, digital, or witness evidence has been presented that he was home, that he used the bands, or that he inflicted her injuries. Police executed many warrants and reconstructed phones and computers.
A frame-up would require him to leave, return unseen, kill three children with household bands, cut her and throw her from a window in a way that produced her injuries and DNA outside, lock the bedroom, leave again, appear on two stores’ cameras, and have her later consistently confess in ways that match the scene—while her own defense team treats her as the actor. That is not a reasonable reading of the evidence. Disbelief that a mother could do this, anger at gaps in postpartum care, and selective clips of a long trial explain why the theories spread; they are not a substitute for proof. 
The hard remaining question in the case is mental state and criminal responsibility, which is why the jury deadlocked—not who physically killed the children.
All I can say is... click on some of the links. :)
Nope. I’m leaving this rabbit hole.
I have to admit that Ai is extremely impressive in situations like this. I still have concerns about it being controlled by nefarious actors, but still....
Me too. I usually try to check it out. But today was not that day.
I think another option is a third party. It wouldn't be the first time someone hired someone to kill a spouse while they established an alibi.
Theoretically possible. If so, the hired assassin was an absolute pro at hiding his/her tracks to include contact with the client. Utterly improbable.
Sounds like they were also a pro at erasing crucial physical evidence that would prove Lindsey did it such as conclusive dna evidence on the bands and her fingerprints on the knife she supposedly mutilated herself with in a fit of child killing insanity.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Abssnce of evidence does require explanation however , especially in a case where it seriously contradicts the desired official narrative in which you seek to convict another human being, possibly for life. Someone’s say-so is not enough to convict when the physical evidence is absent.
Here you go…
Even if you set aside everything Lindsay later said, a third-party killer is still a very poor fit for the physical and digital record. Nothing in the investigation has pointed to an unknown person in the house that evening.
What a stranger would have had to do. Patrick left around 5:15 p.m. after seeing the children alive with Lindsay. She answered his call from CVS around 5:33–5:34 p.m. He is on store cameras at CVS (~5:32–5:37) and ThreeV (~5:54–5:55). He is back shortly after 6:00 p.m. to a silent house, a locked bedroom, blood and an open window upstairs, Lindsay on the ground outside, and the three children in the basement.
A third party would have needed to enter a private home unnoticed, kill three children with household exercise bands while Lindsay was present and able to take a short phone call, then either:
• force or induce her cuts and a second-story jump that left her DNA on exterior shingles, or
• leave her to do that herself immediately afterward,
and then exit before Patrick returned—without forced-entry evidence that investigators highlighted, without a non-family perpetrator DNA profile being presented as the actor, and without anyone seeing another adult. That is a lot of invisible work in a tight window.
What the forensics actually show. Band DNA was mixed family DNA (Lindsay, Patrick, the children), which is expected on gear the household used and after Patrick removed the bands when he found the children. Some samples included Lindsay; none were presented as an unknown killer’s profile that excluded the family. Usable fingerprints were not recovered from the textured bands or the bloody knife, which is common and is not the same as “someone else did it.” Blood outside the window was attributed to Lindsay. Autopsies showed ligature asphyxia, not a struggle pattern that suggested an attacking stranger.
What the devices show without relying on her words. Her phone and Apple Watch place movement in the house in that window (stairs climbed around 5:03 and 5:33; last unlock ~5:13; last heart-rate ping ~5:23). That is consistent with one adult already inside moving between levels. It is not consistent with an outsider arriving after Patrick left and operating independently of her devices.
What is missing that you would expect if someone else did it. No reported break-in. No neighbor or camera account of another adult coming or going in that half-hour. No unidentified suspect DNA treated as the source of the killings. Police executed multiple warrants and reconstructed phones, computers, and store video; they treated Lindsay as the only adult home. Patrick’s alibi is external video, not just his word.
Disregarding her later statements removes one category of evidence. It does not create a second adult in the house, erase the CVS call, erase the store cameras, or turn family DNA on household bands into an intruder. A third-party theory remains speculation that has to fight the timeline and the scene rather than explain them. The live dispute in the case has been her mental state, not whether an unknown person was there.
Exactly
Jenna McCarthy is the only woman/writer in the world that could cause me to have a shadow of a doubt that Lindsay did it.
Thank you for your deep dive. I think people needed to read this. People tend to believe the headlines in MSM and think it’s fact or the truth. Which is surprising to me considering we selectively don’t generally believe the MSM. Like I had said previously, I had watched most of the trial and came away with exactly the same opinion that you so clearly suggested. My heart breaks for those children and I have too many unanswered questions.