Top Tweets for #patrickdidit

Lindsay Clancy case: 1. she is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. 2. the burden of proof is one of BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and is on the prosecution to prove. 3. a “confession” therefore does not prove action, nor guilt. it does not constitute evidence alone. if you cannot understand that she is NOT presently a murderer because she has not been found guilty in a court of law and is therefore legally considered innocent, then you should not be a part of this conversation because you do not have the necessary bandwidth of understanding. you either do not have the capacity and capability to process evidence & information and critically analyse it, or you just hate women. it’s that simple.

Going back through the Lindsay Clancy trial, one thing that keeps standing out to me is how much a man’s feelings about a woman can show up financially. Patrick was reportedly making over $400K at Microsoft. They had a nanny because Lindsay was overwhelmed with three small kids, but when Lindsay said she didn’t want to work anymore, the nanny was immediately let go. And looking at their house and furniture, I kept thinking: this man had money….

One thing that really haunts me about the Lindsay Clancy trial is that she was an L&D nurse. She knew all about PPD and PPP. She knew the symptoms, the treatments, and how the medications worked. She wasn’t some naive young mom who didn’t understand what signs to look for. But what really bothers me, is that as an RN she knew many far less cruel ways to do what she did to her kids. She could have chosen a painless way. A fast way. Instead, she picked one of the most personal, hands-on, violent, and painful methods to slowly kill each child in front of the other, one by one. That really, really bothers me.

Re: Lindsay Clancy trial — I’ve witnessed as much of the trial as has been made available on television. I have also read and digested every single, available news report related to the trial in order to be prepared to provide opinions on TV. I have listened to the judge’s jury instructions. I’ve paid keen attention to the prosecution’s and defense’s televised closing arguments. And I understand that Massachusetts law has specific provisions regarding murder charges such as the ones brought by the state and they are important to apply in this specific case. And, I have some 25 years in the realm, as an FBI agent, helping bring federal murder charges (as part of RICO investigations) and I’ve watched the judicial process play out and employed strategic judgments (with prosecutors) to help convince a jury to convict accused criminals. However, this case is going to be a bellwether and proxy battle related to the mental health system in the United States. Clancy has certain *sympathies* afforded that Susan Smith and Andrea Yates did not. That could prove to be the margin of victory in her defense. Different times. Different standards. From pariah to “victim,” in a case that highlights what’s counter to the natural order — a mother, supposedly hardwired to protect her offspring at all costs — choosing to snuff out their innocent lives. This case is going to be a very DIFFICULT case for the jury to consider and all the additional layers of law to be considered are going to overwhelm and confuse the jury of Clancy’s peers. And I suggest that not to presume their ignorance, but to argue the complexities and vagaries of the disparate interpretations of the defendant’s actions. This case is going to be a tough call. I can foresee a conviction … maybe on lesser charges. I can also sense a holdout (or two) to hang this jury and force the state to try the case again. Despite the fact I feel the defense didn’t make as compelling case during closing arguments. The prosecution was better today and it will resonate in juror’s minds. All I can say is this: the jury is being overwhelmed with “expert vs. expert” testimony and pounded with legal minutiae that is difficult to digest — even for those of us who have participated in this space. But the last thing the jury takes away (closing arguments today) might very well be what makes the case. Still fear a hung jury. But now feel conviction on a lesser charge than Murder One (at the very least) will be the order of the day. Time will tell. Pray for the souls of the children. 🙏🏼

The Lindsay Clancy trial is a lose-lose for women. Either: 1. Women’s hormones & feelings are so strong that women cannot be trusted with authority over anything important (and we go back to a pre-1960’s view of women) OR 2. Women will finally be held responsible for their actions, regardless of their feelings and hormones. Women can no longer have it both ways, and the Jury decides which way forward.

Jennifer Sprague did a great job laying out the facts, clearly and concisely during her closing remarks in the Lindsay Clancy trial. She did not use a theatrical performance like Reddington did throughout the entire trial. His tactics were used to distort and discredit credible witnesses and evidence. The prosecuting attorney stuck to the facts. Lindsay is guilty of being criminally responsible for the deaths of Cora, Dawson and Callan. She thought about it, she planned it and she did it. She had the capacity to do it, yet she didn’t have the capacity to unalive herself. She left those children on cold basement floor with the bands around their necks. She should be found guilty of 1st degree murder with criminal intent. In my opinion, the judge put manslaughter on the table to prevent a hung jury.

I'm a Psychologist and have worked with those diagnosed with SMI's for over 20 years. I have watched this case gavel to gavel. I have pages of notes. Lets take these arguments one by one, shall we? Point 1: "She was never diagnosed with postpartum depression or psychosis." Rebuttal: Medical records and trial testimony confirm she was treated for perinatal mental health conditions prior to the incident. Details: During trial, medical personnel testified that caregivers treated her for postpartum depression and severe anxiety, sending patient portal messages regarding those exact symptoms. Furthermore, multiple expert defense witnesses (including forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick) diagnosed her with postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. While prosecution experts argued she was experiencing major depression rather than acute psychosis, the assertion that she was never diagnosed with postpartum mental illness is directly contradicted by both her clinical history and trial testimony. Point 2: "She was not on 13 medications at once." Rebuttal: You are partially correct regarding the timing, but Kevin's point was about rapid polypharmacy over a short duration, not simultaneous daily dosing. Details: The defense team kept displaying a list of 13 different psychiatric drugs (including Zolpidem, Clonazepam, Lorazepam, Klonopin, Trazodone, Seroquel, and Remeron). However, court records and toxicologist testimony established she was prescribed these 13 medications sequentially over a four-month period, being continuously cycled on and off them rather than ingesting 13 pills simultaneously every day. (Disclosure, AI helped me remember all of them). Point 3: "She was not 'hearing voices." Rebuttal: Multiple court witnesses testified that Clancy explicitly recounted hearing a male voice commanding her actions. The incredible legal and psychiatric rebuttal presented by defense experts (led by Dr. Phillip Resnick and Dr. Paul Zeizel) dismantled this claim by differentiating between internal intrusive thoughts and true psychotic command hallucinations: Intrusive Thoughts vs. Auditory Hallucinations The Distinction: In psychiatric medicine, patients early in psychotic or severe OCD/depressive decompensation often experience overwhelming, ego-dystonic "internal voices" (intrusive, unbidden thoughts inside their head that feel distinct from their own conscience). The Clinical Arc: Defense experts explained that Lindsay had reported suffering from terrifying "intrusive thoughts" for months prior to the incident. These "instrusive" thoughts can transition to Hallucination. Psychotic breaks do not always manifest out of nowhere as external, clear-sounding voices. Rather, severe mental illness and medication induced neurochemical imbalance often cause internal intrusive thoughts to escalate until they cross the threshold into full auditory command hallucinations (an externalized "male voice")!! The Prosecution's Myth: The prosecution argued that because she had no prior history of auditory hallucinations, this single instance was "atypical" and suspect. The Defense Counter: Forensic experts testified that acute, fulminant psychosis must have a first manifestation. It is common in postpartum psychosis for a mom to experience months of severe depression/intrusive thoughts, only to suffer a sudden, violent break where command hallucinations appear for the very first time, overpowering her will in a matter of minutes. While prosecution experts questioned the clinical validity of these hallucinations, the claim that she never reported hearing voices is refuted by sworn testimony. Point 4: "She had a mood disorder, never psychosis, and was unreliably managed on medications. Hearing a voice only once right before the act is extremely atypical for psychosis." Rebuttal: The Clinical Evidence of Psychosis, amazing defense expert Dr. Phillip Resnick, testified that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis coupled with bipolar disorder and severe depression. He explained to the jury that psychosis is not defined solely by long-standing, continuous hallucinations, but rather by a complete disconnect from reality and distorted belief systems. Details: The "One Voice" & Sudden Onset (Command Hallucinations)Dr. Resnick testified that Lindsay suffered a sudden "command hallucination" and a "delusion of influence" on the day of the killings. Far from being "atypical," acute psychotic breaks can trigger sudden, overwhelming auditory commands. Resnick explained that a loud male voice commanded her to kill the children so she could kill herself, describing her state of mind as being "like a puppet and someone else was pulling the strings" while experiencing an external force taking over her body. More Details: Medication Instability. Kevin presented testimony showing that her medication regimen was not simply a case of "unreliable adherence" by the patient, but rather erratic clinical management (rapid polypharmacy). The defense established that shifting doses, rapid withdrawals, and continuous drug cycling caused severe side effects, akathisia (extreme inner restlessness), and manic/psychotic decompensation rather than stabilization. (Disclosure- I didn't remember the details of what was presented for akathisia). Point 5: "She carefully planned the murders down to the minute (researching restaurant distance, adding errands, calmly answering the phone, and carrying out the acts in the basement." Rebuttal: The Reality of "High-Functioning" Psychosis: One of the most common misconceptions about severe mental illness is that a person in psychosis must appear outwardly frantic, incoherent, or incapable of basic tasks. Details: Expert psychiatric testimony for the defense emphasized that individuals experiencing severe delusions and psychosis can, and frequently do, perform routine, structured, daily tasks. Operating on "autopilot," making a phone call, asking a spouse to run a routine errand, or checking a map app does not disprove psychosis. Defense experts said that patients often maintain organized behavior for ordinary tasks right up until the psychotic delusion completely overwhelming their impulse control. More Details: Delusional Logic vs. Malicious Premeditation: While the prosecution framed her checking restaurant distances and calling CVS as evidence of calculated murder, defense experts provided an alternative clinical explanation for her organized actions. Altruistic Delusion: Dr. Resnick testified that under her distorted mental state, Clancy held the psychotic delusion that her children were no longer safe on Earth without her mothering and that sending them to heaven was an act of mercy. He also said that she told clinicians she repeatedly said, "go to God" while carrying out the acts. In her psychotic mind, this was not an act of hate or cold-blooded murder, but a mandatory, and I would say, spiritually driven directive that she felt powerless to resist. (Not unlike the Yates case). The "Calm" Demeanor. Her calm phone conversation with Patrick and store clerks was explained by experts as part of her "muted" emotional flattening and detachmen (a classic feature of severe depression and psychotic dissociation). The Immediate Suicide Attempt: Kevin pointed out that true cold-blooded planning to "get away with murder" does not align with immediately jumping out of a two-story window in an attempt to end her own life seconds after the act, which left her paralyzed!! Defense experts concluded that her capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of her actions was completely destroyed at the moment of the command hallucination, regardless of routine actions taken earlier that day. Thus, NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF DISEASE OR DEFECT! Thank you and have a good day.

🚨 Forensic psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun just systematically destroyed Lindsay Clancy’s defense. He evaluated her over a full 3-day period and testified under oath: • She has bipolar II and depression • She was not in a manic episode when she killed her children • She has never had psychosis — postpartum or otherwise. • She maintained full awareness that her actions were criminal. • She planned the killings deliberately. • This was “altruistic filicide” meaning killing those she loved because she believed it would help them, but was not insane when she did it. No temporary insanity. No postpartum psychosis. No loss of control. She knew exactly what she was doing. Lindsey Clancy is going to fry. .