Your earlier responses at least addressed the point I was making. This one doesn’t. You used a graphic, emotionally charged illustration that had nothing to do with the argument I actually made. It appears intended to provoke an emotional reaction and pull the discussion away from the inconsistency I raised. I’m not taking the bait. My point remains the same: Patrick’s public words and his subsequent behavior do not appear consistent
There are many other aspects of this case that I find questionable, including parts of the timeline and evidence, but that’s beside the point here. I’m not speculating about motive in this post. I’m simply comparing Patrick’s own statements with his actual conduct, and to me, they are strikingly inconsistent. It appears you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
You keep explaining what forgiveness can look like, but that isn’t the issue I raised. The issue is whether his conduct is consistent with what he publicly said. You can forgive someone and keep your distance — absolutely. But when someone speaks in unusually strong terms about enduring love, compassion and the person’s fundamental goodness, then has virtually no relationship with them afterward, it is reasonable to notice that the actions don’t match the words.
I’m not arguing that forgiveness means staying married or becoming someone’s caretaker. I’m pointing out the contradiction. You don’t publicly describe someone as deeply loved, fundamentally good, “not a monster,” and ask everyone else to forgive her, then have virtually no contact with her, without people reasonably questioning whether the words and actions actually line up.
Yeah, but you immediately don’t start talking about what a good person that person is after they violated you in the worst way and say she’s not a monster and that their relationship grew diametrically and then nothing. Grief is a process it doesn’t happen overnight and forgiveness is a process. If you truly love someone you still love them no matter what you don’t have to be married to them, but you do visit them and offer support.
@Amaterasuuu0426 It is comical the number of people who actually respond to this post from someone who lives in Tokyo. It’s designed to antagonize and cause discourse.SMDH
Yes, I’m very disappointed in this post. I watched the trial as well, and I’m trying to follow the law and based on the law, the amount of evidence there did not provide being able to find her guilty without reasonable doubt. The investigation was sorely lacking, and the evidence was just not there.
@JenX77X No usable prints, but there was quite a bit of DNA on all three of the bands from Patrick Clancy and the kids and virtually none to speak of from Lindsey. Remember when they talked about a non-nillion.
This makes me rethink my political affiliation. Calling women “crazy cat ladies on SSRIs” and men “cucks” because they reached a conclusion you dislike is not an argument. It is misogynistic, stigmatizing, and intellectually lazy.
Civilization will never be saved by 9 crazy cat ladies on SSRIs and 2 cuck men to weak to stand up to them who needed a group hug after a mother sent dad out to strangle 3 kids.
It’s saved by the one person who wouldn’t sign the permission slip.
That’s the fork in the road!
@halliecou That’s just a pathological tactic called gaslighting. There’s a massive number of people who are able to apply critical thinking to the evidence or lack thereof!
Exactly, I can’t fathom someone blaming the jurors. It would not be difficult for the jurors. Have there been an adequate investigation and the evidence for a conviction was there. The prosecutors had to reach and manipulate to even come up with their trial strategy because the evidence was not there. There was no investigation to speak of.
Oooopsie #PatrickClancy, why did you lie?
#LindsayClancy🩷
You said you pulled into the driveway beside Lindsay's car.
Then.....you said you looked out but couldn't see Lindsay's car because it was dark and her car is black.
What else have you lied about then? Asking for my millions of friends.