
Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Said WHAT About Patrick Rumors?!
About this episode
Lindsay Clancy's attorney was asked to address conspiracy theories accusing Patrick Clancy after the September 4 mistrial. Kevin Reddington said he had not accused Patrick, then said he did not dismiss internet investigators and praised the ability of TikTok and Instagram users to ferret out facts. Four days later, Patrick's attorney said law enforcement had been notified about what he called a destructive defamation campaign.
Patrick was not a defendant in this case. He was the Commonwealth's first witness. He testified about Lindsay's mental-health decline, the night their children died and the 911 call he made after returning home. Lindsay's defense did not contest that she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan; it argued that severe mental illness left her without criminal responsibility. No public evidence has established that Patrick participated in the deaths.
The online case against him has instead been built from grief, appearance and personal choices. His relocation to New York became suspicious to some users. His remarriage became suspicious. His public forgiveness of Lindsay became suspicious. Even the way he testified became material for people trying to decide whether he looked like the kind of father they expected to see.
Tony Brueski, retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott pull apart that process from two directions. Dreeke looks at how choosing a suspect first can make ordinary behavior look like supposed evidence. Scott examines why people impose rigid scripts on grief and punish survivors who do not perform pain in the expected way.
Reddington's words and Cooper's warning now sit on opposite sides of the same online storm. How much responsibility comes with feeding curiosity when real people are absorbing the consequences?
Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292
Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1
Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/
Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod
This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillersLive #RobinDreeke #ShavaunScott #TrueCrime #KevinReddington #ConspiracyTheories #Mistrial #Grief
Get every episode summarized
Each time Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Transcript ready
483 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.
Full transcript
Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns — Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Said WHAT About Patrick Rumors?!. Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.
This is the big breakdown. A long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killer's podcast and True Crime today. This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Outside the courtroom, there has been an ugly spectacle playing out around Patrick Clancy in the Lindsay Clancy case. The man moved to New York, remarried and has tried to put one foot in front of the other. Instead of letting him heal, the internet has turned into a mob snapping photos of him on the street, tracking his personal life, and furious that he isn't publicly mourning the right way. Let's talk about this weird, aggressive urge people have to police the surviving father's grief to do that. Robin Dreeck is with the retired FBI Special Agent. Chief of the Counter Intelligence Behavioral Analysis, I'm getting word, we might actually have another, we have more of Kevin on the steps of the courthouse.
And what did it go his way? Oh my gosh. Here he is again. He looks like he's racing. He's trying to. Two. There we go. All that. Look at that. Ring of fire. Tony, I'd love to say that you have too much time on your hands, but I have a lot of content you put out so you don't. Can I please host that game, Shell? Please? Can I host that? Yes, he's taking the physical challenge. Let's watch that again. Here we go. Mark Summers is a magically also de-aged. Mark is back to being about 28. You know you shouldn't have done it. He's having a getting off his harlequin to do it. Yeah. He's making it through. We're going to AI, scary unit.
There we go. You like the ring of fire. I'd love to see Kevin Reddington do the moonwalk. If you ever want to work on something, have him do like Michael Jackson to answer. As he hops off his harlequin, I still think that Harley is part of who he is. Oh my goodness. Funny. Yeah. The Patrick question. Yeah. I mean, people have literally taken creep shots of this guy getting coffee in Manhattan and posted them online with captions. Look at him. He doesn't even care about his babies at the drive. You shit like that. I mean, I mean, when did true crime fandom cross the line into thinking we have the right to stalk a surviving parent and grade his pain? It's you know, he said so we've covered this a lot with Shavon and there's a lot of things that play into this. His courtroom demeanor. The fact that he got married three years and so we've been talking about well how long
is too long to grieve. We have all these little data points, but I've been really thinking hard about this and that's because as you all know, Tony Todd and Lisa, I had a clip that came out on Lisa B. Lewis, Women of Influence podcast that was talking about how Patrick stood with Lindsay, the family stood with Lindsay, co-worker stood with Lindsay and I got absolutely eviscerated for saying the words Patrick stood with Lindsay. I thought about this and trying to understand why because and why he said stood with Lindsay or stands with Lindsay, I meant that he supported her and the psychotic break because he was part of her life and he knows that wasn't her. That's the intent of my message. But the words stood with Lindsay, that's what got played on, that's what people are hammering. So when I thought about that, I said why were those words so triggering and I when you take that optic back, here's what I really, really think this is about and all these other data points too, but the one of the major data points that when is human beings, we pick
up on creepy and when people make us feel creepy, we have a visceral reaction to it. We don't know why, but just make us feel creepy. So I years ago, I looked at what makes us feel creepy. It's incongruence between what we see and what we expect from a baseline. And so I've been focusing on Patrick's behavior in there and how it was him grieving, Shavon said the same thing. He's got walls up. The survivor guilty has and all these other things that played into how he's trying to cope and move on with his life. But what I really think was when people were hammering me for saying he stood with Lindsay, it doesn't look like he stands with Lindsay. And what I mean is what I think people are picking up on and I get it now. I don't think it makes any sense, but here's what it is. One else that I've mentioned that we're saying is on Lindsay's side, where are all of them? They are all in the courtroom. They are all part of her life. They haven't moved on. The person that was closest for his own mental health, whatever the reasons are, he's
not there. So he's the incongruence. And what we've said it before, what does everyone want? Everyone wants a monster. They can't, you know, for the ones that are pro Lindsay that can't believe she's the monster because there was a monster inside her, which is that psychotic break or was the postpartum, severe postpartum depression with SI ideation and then the, the, um, philosophie, altruistic philosophie, you know, whatever, whatever flavor you want, it, she wasn't in her right mind and cognitive of it. And the reason why again, the, the Patrick Pyle on I think is because he is incongruent with what everyone else in his, in her life is demonstrating in the courtroom and everywhere else. He is completely innocent of absolutely any of the horrendous things people are saying about from my perspective, from testimony, from everything we're seeing actual data and not the tic-dog verse. That's why I think it is. It's, it's just, I mean, it, it seems to be kind of this unspoken expectation that if you survive something horrific, you have to remain permanently broken to being deemed worthy of sympathy.
I mean, because the rest of the family looks at, I mean, well, they don't, I mean, not all of them do. I mean, if, if, if Patrick were drinking himself to death and the basement, people would feel bad for him. The minute he tries to rebuild a life, it's treated like a betrayal. I mean, why are people so deeply offended by survival? And then they try to go to, he's profiting. Like his friends set up a go fund me to help with the funeral costs and the medical costs. And here's how stupid some of the comments I've seen on that are. What medical costs? Bless your heart. You think Patrick wasn't sitting there at the end of the day after his wife did all this and there was no medical cost for all of that. And then the surviving child in the hospital for days and then the kids getting back, oh, trust me, there was hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical costs guaranteed for all of that. And then just trying to figure out where life was.
And so here, it's easy to analyze. So if you could look at, because I know people are planning on that go fund me, which I think is really not right in a lot of reasons. But let's look at other cases. We've had them. I'm trying to remember that we've had a few of them where their go fund me's were set up. And so look at other cases, look at other examples of people that set up go fund me's that are very clearly for their own profit, their own order ride. Yeah, they're our shitty ones. And here's what the congruence on those all are. What are those people actually doing every day in their lives? Nothing. They're waiting to live off the go fund me. What's him and his new wife doing, working their asses off in New York City. He's still got a full time job. His new wife's got a full time job. There's still pain bills. So he went for a walk this morning and he's not in the courtroom. Oh my God. I just point out data points of, let's look at other cases where go fund me's were used for malicious intent for profit for gain and to think that someone strategized out.
Again, I know everyone's that's on the hate Patrick bandwagon will always find the data points to support their point of view because of the confirmation bias and our amazing ability to find patterns where they don't exist. You know that that he decided that all right, I'm going to off my three kids, I'm going to set up a go fund me and make a lot of money and frame my wife. That's what some of these people are actually believing right after they got off the, you know, proven that the earth is flat. We didn't land on the moon. But it's just the most ludicrous thing because again, because think about this, what have we typically seen in cases where someone's trying to profit off a death, life insurance policies. Yeah. No set up go fund me. So go fund me's are the things that either people set up for you after the fact because you're in distress or, or you're in financial straits because you can't pay bills because I'll tell you and it's not because. So think about this too because people say, well, you know, Reddington should be doing his pro bono's. I've heard that argument as well. Well, so put Reddington's salary aside.
You know how much money it costs to bring to fly experts in to pay for their expert opinions. All these things it takes for three and a half years or three years plus to bring in all these people for that amount of time. So regardless of of Reddington's personal cost, the cost of bringing in how many witnesses again were there for defense. I don't know if time I had been. I mean, for defense, not it was a much smaller number than the prosecutor. Right. Because everyone you bring in, you have to pay for. Yeah. And these experts are not cheap to pay for the prosecution side to state pays for it. Yeah. And so defense, the family pays for it. Plus, like you said, the medical bills of trying to treat her, the funeral costs. The whole and they took a loss on the house because they sold the house in order to try to pay the bills or whatever reason they are. I don't want to have a conjecture on it, but they took a loss on the house from my own understanding when they sold the house. There's all these things. So all I'm saying is everyone take a deep breath and have a little grace and get a little
more curious. If something stands out to you, says, um, dive deeper. Don't come to a conclusion and ask yourself, what does that potentially mean? And hold multiple theories in your head and try to prove or disprove everything at the same time. No. Yeah. There are so many things that need to be looked at at a clearer light in this case. And I don't know. I walk away from it going, yeah, you know, some people, you know, earlier in the year, we'd read that the Mel or not. Who's the, the, let them book the, um, oh, Mel, um, Mel Robbins, Mel Robbins book. I think I need to read it again. It's a regular philosophy, a common philosophy, but, but sometimes you know, you gave very caught up into how, how are you not seeing this, this way or how are you not seeing it my way or why can't I see your, which like sometimes you just got to go and do the, let's say however you want.
Yes. So there's nothing I'm going to do to change this. And everything. And this is, this is one of the easier cases we've covered from the coverage standpoint because we covered it while it was in trial. So we're actually able to use just the facts and data as presented in the trial itself. And so it's been very easy to, to hear these wild ass claims on TikTok peoples, people pretending to have authority or stating to have authority. And, you know, I saw this here, here, here. And, and, you know, I'm not saying this, but this is interesting because I draw people in on pure conjecture, pure, humanistic way to find, to find patterns where they don't exist to prove a point because you don't like something in your life because you don't like the person in your life. No, it's very easy. Just go to testimony because both the prosecution who's trying to put her in jail for the rest of life and say this criminal culpable as well as the defense who's saying that she's not criminally, criminally culpable. If it was able to be flushed out as a fact by either side, it would be in there because
they're throwing everything they possibly can at the wall to try to make it stick. So if you came up with something that wasn't in a trial, the likelihood of you coming up with an original idea is zero to nothing. I said it the other day, you know, the courage to be just like, hey, except the fact you're average, you're not special. You're not coming up with any great, grand schemes or ideas. I mean, on our show here every single day, it's just us coming up with great schemes or ideas of what we think is really going on. No, it's the bunking a lot of nutters that are coming up with crazy schemes and ideas that have nothing to do with facts, data and details, especially this case is so easy to follow. Watch the testimony, watch all of it. All of it is there to watch. So just do it. It's just right there. Yeah. Well, and it's an ability to accept information that may make you feel uncomfortable or may challenge, you know, one's understanding or belief systems and things being black and white. And this is a case that certainly does that.
And then there's one more point here, Tony, too. And this is how you do it with an open mind. And even, you know, Coffin Defer who, you know, 180 degrees out, said it on air, said to her, even though we're still friends, you know, completely disagree on probably every single point about this case with her. You know, when Hal Brain, I can't even say his name, right, the last rebuttal, special expert for the prosecution got up there and gave his two potential theories. As a guy that's on the side of, I think, I think defense is right on this one. I think that she's not criminally culpable according to Massachusetts state law, according to what we've seen at mass ad deviation split. And this is a prosecution expert getting up there. It's like, he made sense. I can actually entertain that thought because I'm critically thinking through the things he saw because what exactly he said during his testimony was because of her life, arc and her behaviors and all the testimony from all these people in his life. This does, he literally said, don't quote me. It was something that, in fact, this completely does not make sense that she would do this.
So with that information, there has to be another explanation. He gave the psychotic break explanation and the other explanation. That's how we maintain critical thinking is we entertain the thought of the other opinion and actually flush it out. And that's something we need to do more of. And I like that we do that here, but it would be good to see it in other places as well. Your thoughts in the comments section on substack and YouTube as we continue to wait for the judge to bring the jury back in. And for Reddington to be back from the obstacle course and have filed what he needs to file. And we'll see what exactly where this goes from here. But more on this case and others, then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brusky and the Hidden Killers podcast.
He says influencers and conspiracy theorists have spread baseless claims at Patrick was somehow involved in the deaths of Corridor Dawson and Callan. He says those claims have threatened Patrick's reputation, livelihood and life law enforcement has been notified. That's part of the statement that was made a couple of weeks ago. We had attorney Eric Fattis on here and we were asking, who should Patrick sue first? Because it's been getting insane. I've been saying Patrick, you need to start suing people to shut them up. I hope to God he does. I mean, did you just stop for a second and think about the fact that this statement ever became necessary. I was shocked when I first started hearing about it honestly in this case that people were blaming Patrick. I thought people were confusing the case with something else at first. I'm like, nah, this is clearly not like, you mixing it up with something else? No, no, people are. People came home and Patrick came home and discovered his children. The jury heard his 911 call. He testified about what happened.
Nothing presented the trial, implicated him in their deaths. Yet complete strangers picked through his grief, his forgiveness of Lindsay, his divorce, his new marriage, where he lives and when he appeared in court. And somehow, and his walks, he went for a walk the other day in New York and had coffee, holy shit. And somehow turned their suspicion and smiled, woo! And turned their suspicion into an accusation. Shavon, what should have Patrick done? What could have Patrick done to prevent the masses from looking at him and going, you're a baby killer? Yeah, that's, I agree with you. That's probably the craziest thing about this. And someone the other day, again, wrote me on social media and said, well, I don't know much about this case, but everybody says the husband did it. And I'm kind of going along with that. And so I wrote back and said, where, what's the evidence for this?
And she said, well, what I'm hearing, not, you know, just what I'm hearing, is that he moved on too fast in a way that none of us could have done. And so my response to that was, if I were his therapist, I would say this grief is going to be with you the rest of your life. You're going to be thinking about this every day. But what I would advise you to do is create a new life for yourself. You need to find joy. You need to find a sense of purpose. And that will look different for everyone, what that looks like. But I don't think the fact that he moved on eventually married, as you've said three years later, and has started a new family. There's nothing pathological about that. That's a healthy thing to do. And as a clinician, I would never say don't grieve. Of course, he's still grieving. He's always going to be grieving. This will never leave him.
It's altered who he is. I'm sure it would for anyone. But I think, as you said, Tony, what do you want him doing sitting in a dark room being his head against the wall forever? I mean, that's not healthy. He's got to build a new life. Just as Patrick's forgiveness of Lindsay and Rage people, because they know that they couldn't be that strong to do that themselves, is that really what it comes down to is people look at Patrick and they see a better man than they are and they know it deep down. They're never going to say that out loud. But they see a better man. They see a better human being. Take sex out of it, male, female, whatever. They see a better soul, a better person who was able to navigate this in a way that they would fail miserably at. And every which way imaginable and they know it because they're that weak will of human beings. And they see somebody that survived this. And for some reason, they look at that and go, that's threatening. I better demonize that. People do that. And I'm wondering if this is just some weird twisted prime example of that where the guy
found a way to move on with his life successfully, healthily, as best as you can after something like this, still advocate for the woman who actually did this publicly forgave. And they know, that's not in me. So you're bad. I think that's a very good point and very likely. And the other piece that I don't think people get is the incredible intensity of the way psychosis works. They just don't get it. Someone else wrote to me and said on Facebook, I don't understand how his mother could forgive her. I mean, you know, her grandchildren were killed. And it just goes back to what we keep saying. It's because she was not her normal self. She was not in her right mind. She was completely transformed. She was not in reality. And clearly, the family understands that. They could see her change.
And people just, I have a hard time and probably because I've worked with so many psychotic people and had a few in my family. I get it. You know, I have seen very nice people literally have a psychotic break and behead their mother. I mean, you know, that's pretty extreme. And I could go on with a book of stories about things that very nice people have become psychotic and done. And other folks just don't seem to be able to wrap their head about what a transformation it is when your brain breaks to that degree. It doesn't even want to even go there. Yeah. In the middle ages, they called it demon possession and tried to exercise you. Some still do. Some still do. And so another area besides the projection going on with Patrick's here too, I think that there's a lot of other things that can be contributing. So also, Chavon, do you think the image I have is Luigi Mangioan, where people are celebrating
him as a hero because he saw himself as a social justice warrior. Consequences be damned. And so is that what do you think some people are also doing is potentially have seen that hey, I'm going to be a social justice warrior for the kids. So it's got to be an evil villain here. So regardless of the consequences, I could be sued for defamation here. I'm going to be a social justice warrior and stand against Patrick. Is that playing in it at all or? Yeah. And very much they see themselves as moral crusaders and that's that moralizing identity fusion that they've got, that I'm the one who's fighting here. I'm fighting for those children and it's lacking insight. It's confirmation bias. It's throwing out the facts, but it's very much become an identity for people where they're so fired up about it and they get so angry. And yeah, I'm worried for him, you know, for his safety because when people become crusaders
like that, they can get dangerous. They can do really scary things, especially when you're self right, you know, because again, then you have the self radicalization going on where you it's easy to find people in these pockets online, whether it be TikTok or X or anywhere else or discord, where they get in a group think mentality and they start ramping each other up and they start spinning out of control. And that's where the, that's when it gets like you said, really, really dangerous. And so the social media is fueling throwing caracene. The algorithms are feeding it and the crazy nutters just go to the point of their own psychosis. I want to, this is an interesting comment and Shavon, you can probably shed some light. The case is getting worldwide attention for different reasons than you may think. Yes, Europeans are mostly baffled by the 1920 style mental health care and the judicial system in the US in 2026. How accurate is that? Are we, are we in a 1920s mental health system in the United States when the rest of the
world looks at us and are understanding of things like this? I would even put us back earlier than 1920s. I think we can, I think we can go back to 1800s. And yes, I've seen those, those people talking about the devil and demon possession and, and that psychosis. I mean, yeah, this, actually, I belong to groups on Facebook for parents of psychotic adult children. And so I monitor it just because it's fascinating to me, people are coping. And every now and then somebody will pop up and say, I believe my son is demon possessed and we've all got to pray. And there'll be a few, a handful of people who agree with that. So yeah, this country in many ways is still stuck, stuck a hundred years ago. And I think in many ways when it comes to health care, Europe has done a much better job. I haven't traveled in Europe extensively. I was in Madrid, Spain about 10 years ago. There were no homeless, um, mentally ill people living on the sidewalks like me.
Can you mean there's a way of handling that? I think it was, was yesterday or day before we actually had one of our, uh, our people in the chat said that they were from Norway and they, I think it was Norway, Norway. It was one of the Scandinavian countries, I believe, and said that they went to, this would not be a case. She would not have even gone to trial. They wish she would have been put in a mental institution right away. Um, and it's, yeah, it's just standard. I mean, it's like a standard thing and that they were appalled. And then I remember looking at the chat, they were getting then pounded on by the, the evil righteous people saying, well, you know, country's evil. God, I don't live there. I mean, just, we are nuts. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's really fascinating to see the reaction because we do have a lot of listeners and other parts of the world outside of the United States. Uh, and it's been fascinating to see the reaction, uh, to this case versus those in the US where we're, we're just kind of, we seem like we're battling each other just to understand the basics of this thing. And the rest of the world is looking at us like, what is wrong with you guys? Like what?
Why is this such, uh, you know, in a loosive concept for you to wrap your minds around? And to that, I say, I don't know, but that's why we're talking about it right now, which is even so if you think about it, I'm sorry, last point on it. So when you think about it, you have some countries in Europe and other places, sure, I'm been told that have that as a standard that is one that's gone to trial. She would have been found criminally insane and she would have just been institutionalized right from the get go. Meanwhile, in the United States, you only have a handful of states that are actually saying that you can actually have the defense of not being criminally responsible and the burden on the defense to say she isn't. I mean, that she is in vice versa. I'm others, we are, we are so far out of sync with the rest of the world. And that's why I think, um, Reddington during his, um, during his defense was saying he's laughing at the DSM trying to prove what a, what a ballics thing that DSM is compared to the standard that Europe uses for mental health. Uh, uh, yeah. I mean, Emily, we live in a country too where, you know, you can go across a state line.
And in one state, uh, you know, it exists mentally, illness exists. And then, you know, 10 feet that way, it's, it's witchery. I mean, this is where we are in 2026. It's still like that. Uh, so I think we have a long ways to go. Uh, number one in our system catching up and then the psyche of our population, getting there, we're going to be long dead if, if we ever get there and I'm kind of, I think it might kind of be our downfall quite honestly. Your thoughts in the comments section on sub stack and YouTube as we continue to work through the Lindsey Clancy case. Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski and the Hidden Killers podcast.
More episodes
More from Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns

Anna Kepner Case: What Shauntel Asked a Judge to Change
Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns

Lindsay Clancy’s Defense Says Prosecutors Never Offered WHAT?!
Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns

Lindsay Clancy: Eleven Jurors Wanted WHAT?!
Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns

Charlie Adelson's Girlfriend Did WHAT With The Money?
Hidden Killers Live! Daily True Crime News & Breakdowns