News

Ah, so you're lying on purpose. I'm not even arguing with you anymore, because you're deliberately spreading disinformation. I'm just correcting the record to keep others from eating your shit.

Now that the trial has taken place in Plymouth Superior Court, the actual sworn testimony, forensic exhibits, and trial record directly disprove these claims:

"If you actually watch his questioning, he flip flops over and over on things. At one point, one of the prosecutors was asking him about the timeline, and he actually asked them what he did and they told him."

• The Reality: Patrick Clancy testified on days 1 and 2 of the trial. His testimony of the timeline remained consistent with his initial statements, GPS data, cell records, and surveillance logs. At no point did prosecutors feed him his timeline, nor was he impeached by defense attorney Kevin Reddington regarding his whereabouts between 5:15 PM and 6:09 PM.

"The children were strangled while they had their hands tied behind their backs. That is what I am referring to when I talk about the knots."

• The Reality: Autopsy findings, crime scene photos entered into evidence, and medical examiner testimony established that none of the children had their hands or wrists tied. Exercise resistance bands were used solely around their necks. The claim that the children were bound with "left-handed sailor's knots" does not exist anywhere in the trial record.

"The work email and Apple Watch data I am referring to came up during her lawyer's questioning. The lawyer brought it up with their ISP records. Patrick looked surprised, and suddenly his story didn't align with his previous claim about the wifi being down. The email was sent from his work laptop which was located in their basement, at 5:24..."

• The Reality: This entire scenario is fabricated. No ISP records, basement work emails sent at 5:24 PM, or Apple Watch heart-rate discrepancies were ever presented during Patrick Clancy’s cross-examination or at any point in the trial. Patrick was logged on GPS and surveillance in Duxbury and Plymouth during that entire timeframe.

"Patrick's movements between the CVS and restaurant is when he was changing outfits. I have seen the footage and he is clearly wearing different shoes and pants between them."

• The Reality: The surveillance video footage entered into evidence from the Duxbury CVS and Three V Restaurant in Plymouth shows him wearing the exact same winter jacket, pants, and footwear. There was no outfit change.

"As far as him getting remarried goes, I have only heard people mention that."

• The Reality: Trial testimony did confirm that Patrick and Lindsay Clancy have since divorced and that he has remarried. However, there is zero evidence connecting this to the events of January 2023.

"The CVS he called from is 3 minutes away from their house. And from what I have heard people discuss, the body temperature discrepancy places her outside before that call."

• The Reality: Patrick didn't just go to CVS; he drove to Plymouth to pick up dinner at Three V Restaurant (a 54-minute total round trip). Emergency medical responders and trauma doctors testified that Lindsay's injuries and vital signs were consistent with having jumped just minutes before Patrick arrived home and called 911 at 6:09 PM.

"That came up during the trial, after they already began the case with her mental illness defense... If new information comes to light that proves she definitely did it, then I am certainly willing to change my opinion on it."

• The Reality: Lindsay Clancy's defense has never claimed she didn't do it. Both the prosecution and defense agree on the physical act; the entire legal trial centered on criminal responsibility and postpartum psychosis. Defense witnesses—including clinical psychologist Dr. Paul Zeizel and forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick—testified that Lindsay suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and command hallucinations that drove her actions.

Trying to frame Patrick Clancy ignores the physical evidence, video surveillance, phone records, and the explicit defense strategy presented in open court.