KRISTIN K

Lack of an investigation and ruling someone out who wasn’t there are two totally different things I have been trying to explain this to the Patrick did it clan for weeks! Reddington did with any reasonable defense attorney would do. That is his job whether anybody likes it or not. Having said that yes, 100% the Patrick did it conspiracy theorists are going to get even worse now! But where in his argument did he ever say Patrick did it he didn’t he said where’s the proof that Lindsey did it and that is up to the court and a jury to determine again remember that is his job if there is a bunch of crazies out there that believe that she couldn’t have possibly done this he’s gonna play on that doesn’t mean Patrick did do it though and that’s what we need to continue to remind people! Again ruling out someone who wasn’t even there and an actual thorough investigation Being done are two totally different things. Now making them realize that is a whole other story. #lindsayclancy

It’s almost like we’ve been saying this forever. Stop using ChatGPT for legal advice. 😂 But thank you to the Caleb Flynn trial and Alleigha Botner for putting on the record exactly why. I mean, at this point, the evidence speaks for itself. 🤦‍♀️ #calebflynn

Like what?! What did he lie about? I know a lot of the things that people claim have been lies are not lies at all. Here’s some examples that have very clear, reasonable explanations, but I am very curious on what you claim he lied about. Not remembering the exact minute you left your house three years later is not a lie. The evidence puts Patrick leaving around 5:15 and surveillance has him inside CVS at 5:32. Whether he sent the 5:24 email from his iPhone or Surface Pro does not magically make him suspicious. Frankly, if every traumatic detail were perfectly memorized and identical every single time, I would have more questions. The CPR argument is also being distorted. We do not know everything Patrick attempted before police reached the basement because nobody else was there. What we DO know is officers heard him screaming before they got downstairs, saw him moving from child to child, and a responder looking through the window actually saw him unwrapping something from Dawson’s neck. He told police he could not wake them up. Also, the first responder that came downstairs and started working on Cora said he just had to shift her to the side briefly because there was blood on the carpet that was seeping through his pants. Since it was testified too, that Patrick found them all faced down or slightly facing the side it’s reasonable to assume that he flipped her over to attempt something . It’s also reasonable to assume that he stopped almost immediately because even told the New Yorker in his interview, how do you choose which child to say when you have three I know that would be the hardest decision I’d ever have to make in my entire life, I’d be screaming for someone else to come down and help ! Oh and The “Patrick just sat on the couch” narrative is absolutely false as well. He was told to move aside after responders took over treatment and shortly thereafter because he was in shock was taken upstairs to the kitchen while they removed each child one by one and attempted to save their lives! The intrusive-thought issue is also missing context. Patrick explained that Lindsay described frightening thoughts about bad things happening to the children, not that she had calmly announced an intention to murder them. The medical testimony itself included periods where she reported intrusive thoughts while at other times denying intent or concern that she would actually harm the children. And Patrick NEVER testified that Lindsay was lying outside speaking in clear, complete sentences. He testified to what he understood when he asked what happened and where the children were. An officer testified that she was mumbling. Later testimony about the 911 recording described guttural sounds, and courtroom reporting described audible gargling and a few said they could make out the word basement. Patrick was physically beside her. It is entirely reasonable that he could make out isolated words or short responses that someone listening to a recording could not. That is a completely different thing from claiming she was having a normal, full-blown conversation while critically injured. It is also completely irrelevant to the fact that she was in and out of consciousness when first responders arrived, it is reasonable to assume she would continue to decline, considering how seriously injured she was. Those are just a few but You cannot strip every statement of context, turn normal memory gaps into “lies,” and then pretend you have evidence Patrick killed his children. That is not what this trial established and for anyone who has ever watched a trial this is not abnormal it happens all the time! #lindsayclancy

No, what’s crazy is refusing to do even a little bit of research into why the exact same shirt can look completely different on two different surveillance systems and then jumping straight to Patrick changed clothes. You are comparing CVS footage taken under bright commercial overhead lighting to ThreeV footage taken in a much darker restaurant under warmer ambient lighting. Those cameras are not using the same exposure, white balance, contrast, saturation, sensor, resolution or compression. In dim conditions, surveillance systems also compensate with digital gain and automatic exposure adjustments, which can flatten lighter colors and make white, off-white or light gray clothing appear substantially darker. And there is another layer people keep ignoring. The clips circulating online are reportedly not even direct digital exports from the surveillance systems. They are recordings of a monitor or television taken with a cell phone. That means you are adding another camera, another automatic white balance system, another exposure adjustment, another round of compression and potentially a different screen brightness and color profile on top of the original surveillance footage. Of course that can further distort what the shirt looks like. This is exactly why analysts have pushed back on these ridiculous clothing-change conspiracies. You cannot look at a shirt appearing bright white under CVS lighting and darker gray in a dim restaurant on a completely different camera, then declare that proves he changed clothes. That is not how digital imaging works. So no, I am not crazy for saying he did not change his clothes. What is ridiculous is treating two differently lit, differently processed, repeatedly re-recorded surveillance clips as though they are perfectly color-calibrated forensic photographs and then building a conspiracy theory around the difference. #lindsayclancy #patrickclancy #ConspiracyTheory

That is entirely untrue, and you respectfully cannot change the actual testimony to make this sound more impossible than it was. First, nobody testified that Lindsay was “soaked.” Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, the defense’s own medical expert, testified that her clothing was wet. That is the actual testimony. Wet is not the same thing as soaked, drenched, or saturated. Laposata explained that wet clothing accelerates heat loss, but she absolutely did not say that being soaked was the only way Lindsay could have reached a core temperature of 82.1 degrees. She identified multiple contributing factors. Lindsay was lying on hard frozen ground. The air temperature was around 30 degrees. It was nighttime with no sunlight. She was wearing indoor clothing, not protective winter clothing. Her clothing was wet. She had a thin body habitus. And most importantly, she had suffered a catastrophic thoracic spinal cord injury that impaired her ability to regulate her own body temperature below the level of that injury. She also had massive traumatic injuries from the fall, including a C1 Jefferson fracture and severe T5/T6 injuries that damaged her spinal cord. She had significant internal blood loss around the muscles supporting the spine, very low hemoglobin and hematocrit, later required massive blood transfusions, and ultimately went into spinal shock and hypothermia. She even coded at Brigham when her heart stopped. And this idea that she was only exposed to the cold for 20 or 30 minutes is not an accurate description of what happened either. Patrick did not find her the instant she went out the window. After he found her, he called 911, went looking for the children, first responders arrived, the children became immediate medical priorities and were transported, and Lindsay remained exposed during that entire emergency response before she was eventually transported to South Shore Hospital. Her body also did not magically stop losing heat the second she was moved off the ground. She had already suffered profound hypothermia, catastrophic spinal cord dysfunction affecting thermoregulation, traumatic blood loss, wet clothing and prolonged exposure to freezing conditions. Rewarming takes time. Her body temperature could continue falling during transport because the underlying physiologic problems did not suddenly disappear when she was placed in an ambulance. The most important part is that we do not have to sit on the internet and guess about this. A physician was specifically asked under oath how Lindsay’s temperature got that low. Dr. Laposata attributed it to the frozen ground, wet clothing, indoor clothing, approximately 30 degree air temperature, lack of sunlight, thin body habitus and, most importantly, the thoracic spinal cord transection that impaired her ability to regulate her temperature. So no, “she had to be soaked or 82.1 is impossible” is not what the evidence showed. The testimony was wet clothing, and wet clothing was only one part of a much larger medical picture. The claim that being soaked was the only way she could have become severely hypothermic is directly contradicted by the defense expert’s sworn testimony. #lindsayclancy

“Appreciate” in the legal standard does not mean enjoy, like, approve of, or somehow “appreciate murder.” It means to understand or comprehend the wrongfulness or criminality of the conduct. That is the legal question. It is part of the standard the two prong test and was read to the jurors in the jury instructions! So calling me “fucking psychotic” because you read a legal term using its casual everyday meaning is kind of proving the point for me. I am discussing the legal standard. You are reacting emotionally to the word. Nobody is saying murder should be appreciated. The law is asking whether the defendant had the substantial capacity to understand that the conduct was wrong. Those are two entirely different things! #lindsayclancy

I seriously want to beat my head against the wall. I really do. This may be one of the most insane things I have listened to throughout this entire case. It was infuriating enough when I was reading watching and debunking all this BS on our TikTok page but If this woman is seriously a former prosecutor, I have never been more concerned. Every case she prosecuted should be reviewed like yesterday because nothing she says here resembles what was actually presented at trial. First, there were ZERO outfit changes. Patrick did not change his clothes or shoes. You are comparing TWO DIFFERENT security cameras with different lighting, contrast, saturation, resolution and angles. Patrick’s skin practically glows in the ThreeV footage. Then Lindsay was supposedly “soaked” and someone must have hosed her down. Ma’am. Lindsay was WET. She was lying severely injured on frozen ground and SNOW while unable to properly thermoregulate and rapidly losing body heat. So what happens when snow melts, class? WHAT DOES SNOW TURN INTO? WATER. Congratulations. Mystery solved. Nobody needed a garden hose, nobody testified that she was soaked ever, and the defense’s own expert addressed why she was wet. Then we get “sailor knots” because Patrick sails. NO. There was ZERO testimony that the bands were tied with sailor knots. Patrick described them essentially like the beginning of tying your shoes, without the bow, and demonstrated an unwrapping motion. “Sailor knots” is SOCIAL MEDIA rhetoric, not trial testimony. It does not magically become evidence because enough people repeat it. The interviewer actually asks whether all of this is real and she basically says she doesn’t know and has “so many questions after this trial.” WHAT TRIAL? Because you clearly did not watch this one. You are describing testimony that never happened and then telling everyone how confusing the case is. No ma’am, YOU are confused because you are apparently analyzing the TikTok version instead of the evidentiary record. Then she claims Patrick said he performed CPR on Cora while a first responder supposedly said he was sitting on the couch, as if those two things happened at the exact same moment. Again, NO. Patrick was hysterical, screaming and going from child to child when the first officer came downstairs. As more police, fire and EMS arrived, they took over and moved him out of the way so they could work on three dying children. A LATER responder saw him sitting on the couch. That is called a timeline. Apparently we now have to explain chronology to a former prosecutor. And stop portraying this like Patrick was sitting there drinking a beer with his feet up while everyone else tried to save his children. He was in shock, hysterical and screaming. His condition became concerning enough that responders called another ambulance for HIM. This is exactly why I am so critical of prosecutors and government actors when criticism is warranted. People hear “former prosecutor” and automatically assign credibility. But if you cannot be bothered to watch a livestreamed trial, read the transcripts, distinguish sworn testimony from internet rumors or understand a basic timeline, invoking your former job does not make your analysis more credible. It makes this far more concerning. Criticize Lindsay. Defend Lindsay. Debate criminal responsibility. Criticize the Commonwealth because God knows I have and they deserve it. Criticize the defense. Tear apart the evidence. But use the ACTUAL RECORD. A difference of opinion means looking at the same evidence and reaching a different conclusion. Inventing outfit changes, sailor knots, garden hoses and testimony that never happened is not a difference of opinion. It is misinformation and frankly infuriating! And coming from someone claiming to be a former prosecutor, that is fucking terrifying. #lindsayclancy #patrickclancy #ConspiracyTheory

This has to be by far the most ridiculous conversation I’ve ever had in my entire life! I am not interested in entertaining this BS men vs woman crap! We started with constitutional rights, and somehow we’ve now arrived at “men build cars and keep the lights on, therefore women exist by male permission.” That is quite a journey. Yes, men work in construction, utilities, manufacturing, transportation, law enforcement, the military, and countless other industries. So do women. Society is maintained by millions of people doing different jobs, not by one sex generously allowing the other to enjoy civilization. And since we’re apparently reducing society to who depends on whom, you were literally birthed by a woman. No men without women. No women without men. No babies without both. Humanity itself is based on mutual biological dependence, so this whole superiority argument collapses before we even get to cars, houses, or electricity. I have never argued that men do not contribute to society. In fact, this entire argument didn’t even cross my mind ever it was you who commented on my post about Lindsay Clancy basically claiming that women don’t have any rights without men, which is insane! What I reject is your claim that my rights, success, and ability to function in society exist because men are benevolent enough to permit them. Again that is ridiculous! Men contribute to society. Women contribute to society. Revolutionary concept, I know. You can acknowledge the contributions men make without turning it into therefore women owe men their existence. That conclusion does not logically follow, and couldn’t be further from the truth! 🤦🏼‍♀️

Except that doesn’t rebut anything I said. And not one person has ever said Lindsay was going to go home. You guys just put words in people’s mouth so that it fits your narrative or you feel better about your comment and it’s weird ass behavior. Nobody said an insanity acquittal historically meant somebody just went home. Of course it didn’t. M’Naghten was acquitted by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life confined in psychiatric institutions. Arnold is actually the opposite of what you are suggesting. His insanity defense was rejected. He was convicted and sentenced to death, although that sentence was later commuted. Talbye proves something different too. She was executed in colonial Massachusetts at a time when the law had not developed the modern distinction between severe mental illness and criminal responsibility. That does not disprove the insanity defense. It shows exactly why the law evolved. Again nobody discussing Lindsay Clancy is saying an NGRI finding means she walks out of court and goes home. Criminal responsibility and what happens after an NGRI finding are two different legal issues. Commitment, hospitalization, confinement, review procedures and release standards are separate questions. The fact that people with severe mental illness were historically chained, institutionalized or even executed does not undermine the modern doctrine. It helps explain why the doctrine developed in the first place. The legal question is not whether something horrific happened. Obviously it did. The question is whether the person who committed the act had the level of criminal responsibility the law requires before the state can punish them as a criminal. Those are not the same question. #lindaayclancy

She said, “Do I have an attorney?” She was trying to change her healthcare proxy. They were telling her no. She wanted a DNR, and they were telling her no to that too. And there is not a universe where asking for an attorney should ever be used against someone. The prosecution can fuck all the way off with that insinuation. Quite frankly, I think it was outrageous to even present that in open court as some indication of consciousness of guilt, lucidity, or sanity when the law is very clear that invoking or asking about counsel cannot simply be twisted into evidence of guilt nor can it be used to prove lucidity or sanity! You do not get to take a constitutional right and weaponize it against a defendant because it fits your theory of the case. And the amount of people who are willing to scream about constitutional rights right up until those rights no longer fit their narrative is absolutely wild as hell to me. Constitutional protections do not only apply to defendants you like, cases you sympathize with, or circumstances that make you comfortable. Either you believe in constitutional rights and due process for everybody, or you do not actually believe in them at all. #lindsayclancy

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is saying mental illness justifies murder. Those are two completely different things. There is a huge difference between someone having a mental health diagnosis and someone being so mentally impaired at the time of the act that they cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of what they are doing or cannot conform their conduct to the law. That is what lack of criminal responsibility is about in Massachusetts. This is not some new defense somebody made up for Lindsay Clancy. The insanity defense has been part of criminal law for over 2,000 years. It started with ancient civilizations. The Roman and Greek legal empires recognized that individuals suffering from severe madness or mental disorders lacked the intent to commit a crime, treating them similarly to young children. In English Common Law roughly 700-800 years ago In the 13th century, legal scholars like Henry de Bracton formally wrote that the mad should be excused from criminal punishment because they could not form true criminal intent aka mens rea. By the 14th century, King Edward II recognized a defense if a person’s mental capacity was no more than that of a wild beast meaning a dumb animal incapable of reasoning. Formal trial records approx. 300 years ago with the first complete, modern transcripts of an insanity trial emerged in 1724 with the case of Rex v Arnold. The modern framework goes back to the M’Naghten rules 183 years ago in 1843, The explicit concept of NGRI was codified following the trial of Daniel M’Naghten in England. The resulting M’Naghten Rule established that a defendant is not responsible if a mental defect prevented them from knowing the nature of their act or understanding that it was wrong. This became the foundational standard imported directly into the United States legal system with each state/commonwealth such as Massachusetts having its own standard for criminal responsibility. I have not seen anyone justify the deaths of those children. What I have seen is a lot of people treating mental illness and legal insanity like they are interchangeable, and they are not. That lack of understanding is exactly why these conversations keep going in circles. #lindsayclancy

I think people are missing the bigger picture here. You do not have to agree with what Lindsay did. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is defending the killing of children. She has to live with that everyday for the rest of her life! But postpartum-onset mental illness is real, whether hormonal, neurological, psychiatric, or some combination of all three, and we do an absolutely terrible job educating families about it. Mothers are sent home after giving birth with stacks of paperwork, billing documents, birth-certificate forms, Social Security paperwork, advertisements for placenta services, cord-blood banking, and everything else imaginable. Yet after three children, I was never handed so much as a pamphlet explaining postpartum depression, postpartum anxiety, postpartum OCD, postpartum psychosis, postpartum onset mental illnesses, warning signs, what a spouse should look for, or what to do if or when a family needs immediate help. That should horrify people. A woman can appear completely fine and then deteriorate rapidly. Fathers and partners need education too. Families need to know what they are looking for, and mothers need to be able to say, Something is wrong, without immediately fearing that their children will simply be taken away from them. None of this will ever change if we don’t have the conversations and if we don’t change the system as a whole, a singular change is not going to fix the bigger issues. This case should have created a serious national conversation about maternal mental health, treatment, prevention, early intervention, and how we protect children while also making it safer for mothers to ask for help. Instead, everybody got shoved into camps 1. throw her under the jail, 2. Patrick did it Lindsay is completely innocent, or 3. Lindsay was not criminally responsible and needs treatment rather than prison. And the “Patrick did it” crowd has taken this to a level I have never witnessed in my lifetime. This man lost all three of his children. He forgave his wife. He testified for the commonwealth but in Lindsay’s favor. He has publicly supported treatment rather than punishment, helped create a memorial for his children, has advocated for postpartum mental-health resources and even created a foundation to create the first postpartum treatment facility. Yet people are digging through his Reddit history, analyzing facial expressions, breathing, clothing, wording, parenting decisions, and every ordinary inconsistency they can manufacture into a conspiracy. Even posts showing how desperately he was trying to help his wife are being twisted into evidence against him calling his Reddit posts from years ago as a long drawn out alibi 🙄 Be so F for real right now! It is disgusting. Dig deeply enough into anyone’s life and you will find inconsistencies, bad decisions, awkward statements, parenting mistakes, coincidences, and things that look different with hindsight. None of us live our lives knowing that someday strangers on the internet may freeze frame every facial expression and reconstruct our worst day from a keyboard. Hindsight is 20/20. Do better. Be better. Full stop. #lindsayclancy #patrickclancy

💯 agree! This is exactly why I think people are hyper-focusing on 11–1 instead of looking at how the Commonwealth actually tried this case. Proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult to begin with, and the way the prosecution structured its case made that burden even harder. They came in extremely aggressive from the beginning, painted Lindsay one way, and then spent the back end of the trial trying to soften or recalibrate that presentation at closing. It felt inconsistent because it was inconsistent. Their theory and tone effectively backtracked as the trial progressed, and when your burden is beyond a reasonable doubt on criminal responsibility, that is a terrible position to put yourself in. The prosecution did not simply need experts the jury liked better. They needed evidence strong enough to eliminate reasonable doubt about whether Lindsay retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her conduct to the law at the time. When the defense experts are viewed as credible and their opinions remain reasonably plausible, that creates a serious problem for the Commonwealth because the burden never shifts to the defense to prove lack of criminal responsibility. As for the jurors, everyone has asked me to comment on this! As for the lone juror, If he reached a moral certainty that the Commonwealth met its burden and genuinely believed there was no reasonable doubt, then he had every right to hold his vote regardless of the other eleven. That is how the system works. What concerns me is saying you actually have reasonable doubt, acknowledging that doubt, but then refusing to apply it while simultaneously telling the judge you can follow the law and then refusing to participate in deliberations any further, refusing to answer questions, give examples of that doubt etc. Those are not the same things. A juror does not have to surrender an honestly held conviction just because eleven people disagree, but if a juror affirmatively believes reasonable doubt exists, then refusing to give legal effect to that doubt becomes an entirely different issue. That is why I want to hear from that juror and the distinction I want to hear clarified before I make any judgment about what happened in that jury room. Having said that, if that is in fact what happened, then no, that is not acceptable, and it should not matter what anyone thinks of Lindsay Clancy or what she did. The reasonable doubt standard cannot become optional because the underlying facts are horrific or the defendant is unpopular to some. Once we start deciding that a juror can acknowledge reasonable doubt and simply disregard it because of a personal or moral belief based on what they have been accused of, we are on an extremely dangerous slope. That is precisely how the protections built into the criminal justice system begin to erode, and ultimately how wrongful convictions happen. #lindsayclancy

I own my litigation consulting firm 🤦🏼‍♀️ I hereby mark myself safe from the imaginary employer notification, 🙄 As for the legal argument, filing a motion does not magically convert every factual assertion, legal theory, or attorney argument in that motion into admissible evidence at trial. Motions are requests for judicial relief. They are not evidence simply because they were filed, and Massachusetts law still requires relevance, admissibility, and the application of the ordinary rules of evidence. In fact, Massachusetts expressly distinguishes motions from pleadings, and even civil pleadings themselves are generally inadmissible under G.L. c. 231, § 87. Yes, an actual statement by a party can sometimes qualify as an opposing-party statement, but that does not mean every assertion made by counsel in a pretrial motion is automatically attributable to the defendant as a substantive admission. Those are entirely different propositions. Massachusetts Evidence § 801 defines an opposing-party statement by reference to the party’s own assertion and the surrounding evidentiary rules still apply. The same problem exists with your civil-case argument. You cannot simply announce that something appeared in another proceeding and therefore it can be brought into court. Admissibility depends on what the statement actually is, who made it, why it is being offered, whether it is relevant, and whether some rule or statute excludes it. Massachusetts even has specific categories of statements from other proceedings that are expressly inadmissible despite having been made on the record. So the legal rule is not it was filed somewhere, therefore the jury gets to hear it. That is not evidence law. And tagging the Mass Bar while misunderstanding the distinction between attorney argument, pleadings, party admissions, and admissible evidence is 100% not accomplishing what you think it is but thanks for the free advertisement 😘