Aug. 10, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: Wild TikTok Conspiracy Theories Claiming Patrick Clancy Is the REAL Killer, NOT Lindsay?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed As we continue to follow the testimony in the “Killer Mom Trial” in Massachusetts, it’s hard to understand how posts on TikTok alleging a wild conspiracy theory are getting so much traction. Tiktokers are claiming Lindsay Clancy’s husband, Patrick, is the person responsible for the strangling deaths of his three young children and that HE pushed her out of the window, rather than her jumping out of the window to end her own life. With the defense clearly acknowledging that Lindsay murdered her children, saying she’s not guilty by reason of insanity, we discuss HOW so many people could come to this bizarre conclusion.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Monday, August tenth. And sure, we often get conspiracy theories when there are high profile crimes and trials, but things are getting a little out of hand in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial to the point that some people are convinced the wrong person is on trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, which begins with Robes shaking her head. Yes, Robes just the idea that sounds crazy. But people have zeroed in on another killer.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Yes, they have zeroed in on Patrick Clancing, the ex husband and father of the three children who were murdered. And the reason why I'm shaking my head is the reason why I believe most people who are watching this trial are as well.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: You have.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: This is a unique situation where you have the prosecution saying she did it. You have the defense in okay, she did it. You have Lindsay Clancy admitting that she did it. I mean, in the opening statements, her attorney, a very high profile, experienced defense attorney, saying we acknowledge that she killed her children, and then you have Patrick Clancy also acknowledging that she killed So every single person in this trial No one is disputing the fact that she killed her children.
00:01:26
Speaker 1: Then I ask you why? Then I ask you, why are we sitting here with these things going wild?
00:01:34
Speaker 2: Here's what I believe. Okay, no one wants to imagine or believe that a mother, a loving mother, which has been testified to by just about every single person who's taken the stand that this was a woman who cared for her children, who loved her children. No one wants to be able to admit that she would be capable of it. And they need to blame someone. They need some people say they're men, haters, folks who just don't want to say that a woman, a mother, is capable of this. So it must have been the man. It must have been a guy. We want to demonize him because it's easier to do that societally speaking than it is to demonize the mod.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: Okay, you're talking about that from a social standpoint. Do you see anything that any of these folks have presented from an evidentiary standpoint that would get close to raising.
00:02:29
Speaker 2: Doubt for me? No, but we can go over because it isn't just how people feel. They are citing specific specific pieces of and I put evidence in air quotes, yes please, that they have laid out that they say bolsters, they're claims. I mean, there are folks and it's just not one person. There are lots of people on its going on. Would you say thousands who say you will never convince me. O, my god, Lindsay Clancy killed her children. It was Patrick.
00:02:58
Speaker 1: And they tell anyone who thinks other, you're an idiot. You're not looking at it right. There is an incredible fight going on online over guilt or innocence robes not based on mental or based on insanity, based on the wrong person being on trial robes I cannot believe. And it's causing all kinds of hell as you can imagine in Patrick Clancy's life and with his wife, who is his new wife, who is also this plays into some of these theories as well.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: It actually breaks my heart so many ways because this is a man who has suffered unthinkable horrors and tragedies. To lose your three children, to lose your wife in that moment as well, to lose your entire family and everything that you had been working for and building. You were out getting takeout and you come back and your entire life is over gone. You try and rebuild your life and now going through this trial having people point the finger at you in implicating your new wife in some bizarre conspiracy theory. Look, you can say he could laugh at off, or he could brush it aside, but there's there are real implications to creating this sort of frenzy online. People do read it, they hear about it, they live with it, and they're now under a whole new umbrella of shame, guilt, horror. I mean, it's just revictimizing someone who has already been the ultimate victim.
00:04:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, frenzy is a good word that you use for what's happening online. And look, this is the way sometimes these things go. Internet sleuths they call them TikTok detectives and all this type of stuff. People want to feel like they know better, they figured it out, and that what a rush, right, and it feels good. And this is some of that has proven to be good in the past. Some of it has been great podcasts solving crimes. But yes, it happens. But the desire for that until you or point robes about getting other answers as to why a mom would strangle her three kids, We're looking for something else. But what we're not finding is evidence to support some of the theories. But they're evidence right now. There's several things they're saying that Patrick did it, and they're pointing to these things as evidence, mainly robes. The picks of a possible shoe change that he made. Will get into that. Also her body temperature, also DNA his DNA on the exercise bands. That seems self explanatory, but we'll hit that. Also a work email he sent. Did he send it from his home or did he send it from his phone. Also, he remarried right after the murders and he was having an affair. All of those things are being thrown out there as evidence in this conspiracy theory that yes, he in fact is the killer. Let's start with the shoes ropes.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Okay, so the conspiracy claim is this, and they have pictures from surveillance photos where they zoom in and circle he. Apparently it looks like it's unless someone something to the photos. It does look like he may have changed his shoes between the CVS run and the restaurant pickups. So he went from sneakers to boots or boots to sneakers, and so that must mean that there was a reason why he had to change his shoes.
00:06:18
Speaker 1: Okay, we don't know what that reason is. Also, we do not have confirmed that it is a change of shoes. The pictures are a mess that of those grainy surveillance photos, so you don't know for sure if he changed shoes. He did give testimony that when he got home he took off his boots. He used the word boots, and that's all we got. But that it as far as anything in evidence or any question that's being asked or anything suspicious as far as the investigation goes ropes. There's just nothing there. And even if he did change shoes, this means what There are even some conspiracy theories ropes because he's a big time runner that he was. He took her phone and he ran the air ends to make it seem like that there's even some suggestion that he was doing that. It's it's wild.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I'm I'm confused. Other than the fact that they're saying somehow he was lying for whatever reason, what the implication would be if he changes that he changed his shoes, Like, I don't know, I mean, what would that That doesn't mean he murdered his children and pushed his wife out the window to try and frame her for it. She doesn't remember what happened, and he's just told her what happened. That is what they're trying to claim.
00:07:31
Speaker 1: But the shoes are the big one they point to. That is the number one thing everybody is pointing to online who are saying he did something, Look, he changed shoes.
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Okay, Then the other I would say, one of the other really big things folks appointing to is the body temperature. Her body temperature.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: She is also the most easily explained, I thought, uh yes.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: So her body temperature they testified to this medical professionals when she was brought into the er was eighty two degrees. Obviously, that is life threateningly low. And the conspiracy claim is that her body temperature couldn't have dropped that low if she had only been outside after jumping out for thirty minutes at the most. They're saying that she must have been out there for much longer. So the implication is that he pushed her out, then ran the air so killed the children, pushed her out the window, and then ran the errands and then came back to find her like that. So it had been more like an hour and thirty minutes. That that's the only way her body tempature could have dropped that low, according to the conspiracy theorist that fast.
00:08:36
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of and I give them credit ropes, a lot of medical professionals who have posted something on social media explaining this and explaining it very well. But other factors have an impact of course on the body temperature, including and of course a traumatic injury, including and of course blood loss, which are two things obviously she had at that point. The other thing robes. Yes, she was laying in the snow for fifteen twenty up two thirty minutes. You put all that together, it makes sense. Yes, that was the one I thought was most easily explained.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Yes, And if you're laying in the snow, think about that for thirty minutes, and you have blood loss, and you have a traumatic injury, that could lower your temperature more than it would have otherwise when you're still facing any one of those things independent of the other might not. But when you combine them all together, it medically does actually make sense. And I just think it's so interesting that internet sleuths think that they know they're harproned on that one more than medical professionals.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: They're harpened on that one. The other big one Robes. They think this is evidence of something he married. That's the claim, at least, that he remarried right after the murtives motive. Excuse me, after the murders. So that must mean he was already involved with her while married to Lindsey and Rodes. Of course, if that's the case, that becomes some tabloid headline and they think that points the motive because he had a mistress.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Right, And oh, the people are going crazy about these pictures. They actually even tried to pass off a picture of his new wife from twenty twelve, and it seems like she might be in a photo with him, but there's a guy with her that just looks like Patrick Clancy. It's not Patrick Clancy. And then everyone's noting that her ex looks just like Patrick, and certainly his new wife looks fairly similar to Lindsay Clancy. So people are just going wild with this.
00:10:30
Speaker 1: Say, I haven't seen that picture you talk about from twenty twelve, Yeah, I haven't seen see Something like that gets reposted and reposted and reposted, and everybody just goes aha, and gives their commentary and you don't stop and it's correct.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: Go crazy, And that's exactly what's happening. They're looking at this picture and if you glance at it, I'll show it to you, you could see it does resemble Patrick Clancy. It's absolutely not Patrick Clancy. But if, yes, if there was a photo of him with his new wife from ten years ago or so, okay, But that's what's happening here. There's misinformation being peddled, and then folks are adding to these other conspiracy theories and then creating this whole big conclusion that oh my god, Patrick Clancy, the mastermind behind this all, did this to be with this woman, killed his kids, framed his wife so he could run off with this woman.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: Hello a story. We've seen stories like that before, We've seen elaborate plans. This is just no evidence of that. So the truth of the matter is there is no evidence presented at trial or anywhere else that he was having an affair they I don't even know if he knew this woman, but that he was having an affair. He started dating her in February of twenty twenty four. That is what's on the record, and the Rose. That would have been a full year after the murders took place. They didn't marry until a few months ago this year.
00:11:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look, no one knows people. So many people rush to judge about how soon you should be able to move on emotionally, how quickly? How when is enough time to process grief or the grief of a marriage, the loss of children. No one knows. Everyone is individual, And I think that's so unfair to even put this timeline of their relationship. And when he first met her, you don't know what it was like for him. You don't know what it was like to walk in his shoes. I actually feel like, seeing everything that this poor man went through, I'm actually so grateful that he found someone a year later, found someone who he could actually restart his life with. I mean, what would be the alternative to sit there in fetal position and knock it out of bed. I actually applaud him for being able to move on.
00:12:42
Speaker 1: I don't know, I haven't read enough on this particular enough comments. Are people actually suggesting that he didn't let enough time go by, Like if you know one who lost their kids, they could be dating again so soon, So that must mean he was already that.
00:12:58
Speaker 2: And if you really loved your wife, you know, everything that happened was so traumatic. How could you just literally meet someone a year later and marry her the next year. So yes, people are calling into question his timeline of moving on, and they're suggesting that this woman his wife, had been in the picture all along, but again, zero proof of that whatsoever.
00:13:21
Speaker 1: And the other thing is the work email ropes that apparently was sent by Patrick at five twenty four pm. That time is important because that would have been right in the middle of him running errands.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: That's right. So the conspiracy is that he actually sent the work email from his work computer, which was at home, and if he was at home at this time, he's lying about everything. The whole timeline is thrown off because therefore he then must have been home. He must have committed the murders. He must have pushed his wife out the window, and therefore he must be the killer because how could he be at home sending this email if he was supposed to be running errands.
00:13:54
Speaker 1: So the truth of the matter is he testify that the email was likely sent from his iPhone as a work email. No evidence presented anywhere otherwise that he sent it from home.
00:14:05
Speaker 2: And wouldn't they be able to prove that really quickly. Yes, Obviously forensics, the digital forensics teams that these police departments have, they can go into the computer and if they saw that Patrick Clancy sent an email from his home computer when he was supposed to be running errands, that would have been a massive red flag and it would have been found out very quickly, and it would have absolutely been a part of their investigation.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: And a reminder, folks, in a moment, stay here, a reminder, even with all of this evidence to debunk all of these conspiracy theories, it happened days ago in the trial. Something happened. An agreement between the defense and the prosecution would should have put all this to rest in the first place.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: To hear, Welcome back everyone to Amy, and we are talking about the wild conspiracy theories that have erupted exploded online, specifically TikTok. These internet sleuths who are convinced, convinced that the wrong person is on trial for murder. They believe Patrick Clancy is actually the person who murdered his three children, who pushed his wife out the window, and because she can't remember the events of that day. He has convinced her and the rest of the world that she is responsible for the murders, which is just beyond far fetched. When you have every single person in this case acknowledging and admitting and not disputing the fact that Lindsey Clancy in fact strangled her three children.
00:15:45
Speaker 1: There's no dispute at I mean they have, They've made a formal on the record agreement in court, a number of stipulations in which the defense concedes, Yep, she did that, Yep, she did that. Yep, that's her DNA, Yep, that's her blood that yes to all of it. You don't need to keep bringing in experts, chain of command, evidentiary custody type things. We don't need that because we agree she did all of this stuff. Even that robes. So you have both parties and Patrick, and you have everybody saying that we were there, we were on scene, this is what happened, and yet the Internet, looking at a couple of grainy photos, says they know better.
00:16:32
Speaker 2: It's wild because if you go on to some of these posts, and there are so many of them, each person maintaining and claiming that an innocent woman is being tried for a murder she didn't commit. They're literally saying, my heart goes out to her, she didn't do it. This is absolutely heartbreaking, she didn't do it. Like just it's NonStop comment after comment after comment, to the point where I am truly shocked, as in, are we watching this scene trial. Everyone's saying I felt her innocence the first time I laid eyes on her. It is interesting to see so many people wanting and needing to believe she didn't and couldn't have committed this crime that they're willing to literally put out falsehoods and flat out lies about her husband, And that to me is just that's the heartbreaking part. That people don't understand the real life consequences of peddling these conspiracy theories, fueling them, and then posting them. That there is a cruelty to that that I think is being lost on a lot of folks.
00:17:38
Speaker 1: I robes. I feel bad for this guy and his I mean, he's going to walk around now because a lot of this with people assuming he's a killer, a killer of his own children. Because of this stuff being pedaled, there are people who absolutely believe that.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: Oh I believe they believe it, and They've even gone so far as to say these voices that she said she was hearing that they him whispering to her what like that, that he was trying to make her believe that she did it, and he was whispering to her what we.
00:18:11
Speaker 1: Don't we don't do it in the other order. They always talk to you about reasonable doubt. Right, It's okay to have some doubt, but it has to be reasonable. Your suspicion needs to be reasonable as well. And what's being goes out there is not a reasonable suspicion of this guy. You're just running with anything, any little morsel, and twisting it to your own design. Because, like you said, Robes, we do we need a villain. We need to understand how this young mother would do this, and the best way to explain it for us is to say that she didn't do it, somebody else did and it makes more sense, and we're more comfortable with the man being the villain and the monster who could have done something like this and then set the woman up for it. That is a nice packaged narrative for some babe. That is dangerous.
00:19:02
Speaker 2: It is very dangerous. I actually feel physically ill at one of the posts. They were comparing him to Chris Watts. If anyone knows that story, and I covered it at Good Morning America, it is one of the worst stories ever about a man who killed his children and his wife. Why God, game would they do that? It is that is that is so dangerous and appalling and awful. They're talking about how he became a millionaire because of this, that he got one point seven million dollars in a GoFundMe, and that GoFundMe page where he spoke glowingly about his wife, by the way, the sale of the house and all the proceeds he got to keep. Now he's suing the doctors, going to get more money. So they're referring like how rich he's gotten from this? Are you absolutely for real?
00:19:48
Speaker 1: There's just you say stuff enough, you read stuff enough, and by some point even reasonable people will start going, hmmmm, well, I wonder it's just I hate what's happening. We've watched every second of this trial almost in folks, there is if nothing, anywhere, any any point that suggests anybody other than Lindsay clans to kill these kids.
00:20:14
Speaker 2: Yes, and I saw someone put it like this. I'm paraphrasing here, the prosecution she did it, the defense she did it. Lindsey Clancy, I did it. TikTok, he did it.
00:20:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what's happening. That's what's happening. So broke Yes, today is going to be a hell of a day. The theories will continue, but we have to be reasonable in our coverage of this, and something gets lost to robes. We're not are we Are we having more of a discussion about conspiracies than about him possibly doing it instead of women and a mental health crisis. How it's possible with the woman with this must much access to healthcare still ends up in this position. That is question number one. Be doing the series about it.
00:21:01
Speaker 2: And you know what, you make such a good point, babe, because not only are these conspiracy theories damaging and dangerous and just gutting to Patrick Clancy and his family, but it also takes away from the real issue we should be exploring, discussing, and actually could help women now and in the future, which is to actually examine what postpartum psychosis is and how we can recognize those signs and prevent another tragedy. That's where the focus should be. When you have all of these awful conspiracies theory theories. It does damage and harm, of course to Patrick Clancy, but it also I think takes away from a real opportunity to discuss something that hasn't been fully researched and funded. When you have psychiatrists coming up on the stand who have been in the profession for more than twenty years and have never treated or never recognized postpartum psychosis, that should be something that we're talking about, not deflecting and trying to pin it on someone who had nothing to do with these murders.
00:21:58
Speaker 1: So what's this going to do for the next for women having babies this year? How do you feel our new moms, how do you feel about telling somebody you're struggling after the coverage of this and discussions that are happening online, especially with a young mother, maybe so much of her audience and excuse me, so much what she's reading is online or on social media. What does this do in this conversation make a woman feel about maybe getting some help or mentioning to somebody. Does it make her want to cover it up even more or does it make her want to go, oh, hell, I better say something. I don't know, But the way we're talking about this right now, we are focused on the wrong thing to where we are still some circles and they're getting louder. Are not wanting to examine mental health? Are not wanting to deal with the possibility that this mom.
00:22:52
Speaker 2: Did it even though she says she did.
00:22:54
Speaker 1: Then we don't know. We're not just saying a mental health issue. This is a man issue. This is once again a man doing this to his wife, to his family. That narrative reads in some cases.
00:23:09
Speaker 2: Not here, no, no, and so yes. Not only do we want people to be reasonable, I think we want people to be responsible and recognize that putting conspiracy theories out there like that have and do real damage. Just wanted to put that in a radar case you've been on TikTok and seen any of these theories, please please please be reasonable and responsible. And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roboc alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Monday, August tenth. And sure, we often get conspiracy theories when there are high profile crimes and trials, but things are getting a little out of hand in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial to the point that some people are convinced the wrong person is on trial. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ, which begins with Robes shaking her head. Yes, Robes just the idea that sounds crazy. But people have zeroed in on another killer.
00:00:36
Speaker 2: Yes, they have zeroed in on Patrick Clancing, the ex husband and father of the three children who were murdered. And the reason why I'm shaking my head is the reason why I believe most people who are watching this trial are as well.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: You have.
00:00:52
Speaker 2: This is a unique situation where you have the prosecution saying she did it. You have the defense in okay, she did it. You have Lindsay Clancy admitting that she did it. I mean, in the opening statements, her attorney, a very high profile, experienced defense attorney, saying we acknowledge that she killed her children, and then you have Patrick Clancy also acknowledging that she killed So every single person in this trial No one is disputing the fact that she killed her children.
00:01:26
Speaker 1: Then I ask you why? Then I ask you, why are we sitting here with these things going wild?
00:01:34
Speaker 2: Here's what I believe. Okay, no one wants to imagine or believe that a mother, a loving mother, which has been testified to by just about every single person who's taken the stand that this was a woman who cared for her children, who loved her children. No one wants to be able to admit that she would be capable of it. And they need to blame someone. They need some people say they're men, haters, folks who just don't want to say that a woman, a mother, is capable of this. So it must have been the man. It must have been a guy. We want to demonize him because it's easier to do that societally speaking than it is to demonize the mod.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: Okay, you're talking about that from a social standpoint. Do you see anything that any of these folks have presented from an evidentiary standpoint that would get close to raising.
00:02:29
Speaker 2: Doubt for me? No, but we can go over because it isn't just how people feel. They are citing specific specific pieces of and I put evidence in air quotes, yes please, that they have laid out that they say bolsters, they're claims. I mean, there are folks and it's just not one person. There are lots of people on its going on. Would you say thousands who say you will never convince me. O, my god, Lindsay Clancy killed her children. It was Patrick.
00:02:58
Speaker 1: And they tell anyone who thinks other, you're an idiot. You're not looking at it right. There is an incredible fight going on online over guilt or innocence robes not based on mental or based on insanity, based on the wrong person being on trial robes I cannot believe. And it's causing all kinds of hell as you can imagine in Patrick Clancy's life and with his wife, who is his new wife, who is also this plays into some of these theories as well.
00:03:29
Speaker 2: It actually breaks my heart so many ways because this is a man who has suffered unthinkable horrors and tragedies. To lose your three children, to lose your wife in that moment as well, to lose your entire family and everything that you had been working for and building. You were out getting takeout and you come back and your entire life is over gone. You try and rebuild your life and now going through this trial having people point the finger at you in implicating your new wife in some bizarre conspiracy theory. Look, you can say he could laugh at off, or he could brush it aside, but there's there are real implications to creating this sort of frenzy online. People do read it, they hear about it, they live with it, and they're now under a whole new umbrella of shame, guilt, horror. I mean, it's just revictimizing someone who has already been the ultimate victim.
00:04:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, frenzy is a good word that you use for what's happening online. And look, this is the way sometimes these things go. Internet sleuths they call them TikTok detectives and all this type of stuff. People want to feel like they know better, they figured it out, and that what a rush, right, and it feels good. And this is some of that has proven to be good in the past. Some of it has been great podcasts solving crimes. But yes, it happens. But the desire for that until you or point robes about getting other answers as to why a mom would strangle her three kids, We're looking for something else. But what we're not finding is evidence to support some of the theories. But they're evidence right now. There's several things they're saying that Patrick did it, and they're pointing to these things as evidence, mainly robes. The picks of a possible shoe change that he made. Will get into that. Also her body temperature, also DNA his DNA on the exercise bands. That seems self explanatory, but we'll hit that. Also a work email he sent. Did he send it from his home or did he send it from his phone. Also, he remarried right after the murders and he was having an affair. All of those things are being thrown out there as evidence in this conspiracy theory that yes, he in fact is the killer. Let's start with the shoes ropes.
00:05:49
Speaker 2: Okay, so the conspiracy claim is this, and they have pictures from surveillance photos where they zoom in and circle he. Apparently it looks like it's unless someone something to the photos. It does look like he may have changed his shoes between the CVS run and the restaurant pickups. So he went from sneakers to boots or boots to sneakers, and so that must mean that there was a reason why he had to change his shoes.
00:06:18
Speaker 1: Okay, we don't know what that reason is. Also, we do not have confirmed that it is a change of shoes. The pictures are a mess that of those grainy surveillance photos, so you don't know for sure if he changed shoes. He did give testimony that when he got home he took off his boots. He used the word boots, and that's all we got. But that it as far as anything in evidence or any question that's being asked or anything suspicious as far as the investigation goes ropes. There's just nothing there. And even if he did change shoes, this means what There are even some conspiracy theories ropes because he's a big time runner that he was. He took her phone and he ran the air ends to make it seem like that there's even some suggestion that he was doing that. It's it's wild.
00:07:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I'm I'm confused. Other than the fact that they're saying somehow he was lying for whatever reason, what the implication would be if he changes that he changed his shoes, Like, I don't know, I mean, what would that That doesn't mean he murdered his children and pushed his wife out the window to try and frame her for it. She doesn't remember what happened, and he's just told her what happened. That is what they're trying to claim.
00:07:31
Speaker 1: But the shoes are the big one they point to. That is the number one thing everybody is pointing to online who are saying he did something, Look, he changed shoes.
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Okay, Then the other I would say, one of the other really big things folks appointing to is the body temperature. Her body temperature.
00:07:48
Speaker 1: She is also the most easily explained, I thought, uh yes.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: So her body temperature they testified to this medical professionals when she was brought into the er was eighty two degrees. Obviously, that is life threateningly low. And the conspiracy claim is that her body temperature couldn't have dropped that low if she had only been outside after jumping out for thirty minutes at the most. They're saying that she must have been out there for much longer. So the implication is that he pushed her out, then ran the air so killed the children, pushed her out the window, and then ran the errands and then came back to find her like that. So it had been more like an hour and thirty minutes. That that's the only way her body tempature could have dropped that low, according to the conspiracy theorist that fast.
00:08:36
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of and I give them credit ropes, a lot of medical professionals who have posted something on social media explaining this and explaining it very well. But other factors have an impact of course on the body temperature, including and of course a traumatic injury, including and of course blood loss, which are two things obviously she had at that point. The other thing robes. Yes, she was laying in the snow for fifteen twenty up two thirty minutes. You put all that together, it makes sense. Yes, that was the one I thought was most easily explained.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Yes, And if you're laying in the snow, think about that for thirty minutes, and you have blood loss, and you have a traumatic injury, that could lower your temperature more than it would have otherwise when you're still facing any one of those things independent of the other might not. But when you combine them all together, it medically does actually make sense. And I just think it's so interesting that internet sleuths think that they know they're harproned on that one more than medical professionals.
00:09:38
Speaker 1: They're harpened on that one. The other big one Robes. They think this is evidence of something he married. That's the claim, at least, that he remarried right after the murtives motive. Excuse me, after the murders. So that must mean he was already involved with her while married to Lindsey and Rodes. Of course, if that's the case, that becomes some tabloid headline and they think that points the motive because he had a mistress.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Right, And oh, the people are going crazy about these pictures. They actually even tried to pass off a picture of his new wife from twenty twelve, and it seems like she might be in a photo with him, but there's a guy with her that just looks like Patrick Clancy. It's not Patrick Clancy. And then everyone's noting that her ex looks just like Patrick, and certainly his new wife looks fairly similar to Lindsay Clancy. So people are just going wild with this.
00:10:30
Speaker 1: Say, I haven't seen that picture you talk about from twenty twelve, Yeah, I haven't seen see Something like that gets reposted and reposted and reposted, and everybody just goes aha, and gives their commentary and you don't stop and it's correct.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: Go crazy, And that's exactly what's happening. They're looking at this picture and if you glance at it, I'll show it to you, you could see it does resemble Patrick Clancy. It's absolutely not Patrick Clancy. But if, yes, if there was a photo of him with his new wife from ten years ago or so, okay, But that's what's happening here. There's misinformation being peddled, and then folks are adding to these other conspiracy theories and then creating this whole big conclusion that oh my god, Patrick Clancy, the mastermind behind this all, did this to be with this woman, killed his kids, framed his wife so he could run off with this woman.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: Hello a story. We've seen stories like that before, We've seen elaborate plans. This is just no evidence of that. So the truth of the matter is there is no evidence presented at trial or anywhere else that he was having an affair they I don't even know if he knew this woman, but that he was having an affair. He started dating her in February of twenty twenty four. That is what's on the record, and the Rose. That would have been a full year after the murders took place. They didn't marry until a few months ago this year.
00:11:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look, no one knows people. So many people rush to judge about how soon you should be able to move on emotionally, how quickly? How when is enough time to process grief or the grief of a marriage, the loss of children. No one knows. Everyone is individual, And I think that's so unfair to even put this timeline of their relationship. And when he first met her, you don't know what it was like for him. You don't know what it was like to walk in his shoes. I actually feel like, seeing everything that this poor man went through, I'm actually so grateful that he found someone a year later, found someone who he could actually restart his life with. I mean, what would be the alternative to sit there in fetal position and knock it out of bed. I actually applaud him for being able to move on.
00:12:42
Speaker 1: I don't know, I haven't read enough on this particular enough comments. Are people actually suggesting that he didn't let enough time go by, Like if you know one who lost their kids, they could be dating again so soon, So that must mean he was already that.
00:12:58
Speaker 2: And if you really loved your wife, you know, everything that happened was so traumatic. How could you just literally meet someone a year later and marry her the next year. So yes, people are calling into question his timeline of moving on, and they're suggesting that this woman his wife, had been in the picture all along, but again, zero proof of that whatsoever.
00:13:21
Speaker 1: And the other thing is the work email ropes that apparently was sent by Patrick at five twenty four pm. That time is important because that would have been right in the middle of him running errands.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: That's right. So the conspiracy is that he actually sent the work email from his work computer, which was at home, and if he was at home at this time, he's lying about everything. The whole timeline is thrown off because therefore he then must have been home. He must have committed the murders. He must have pushed his wife out the window, and therefore he must be the killer because how could he be at home sending this email if he was supposed to be running errands.
00:13:54
Speaker 1: So the truth of the matter is he testify that the email was likely sent from his iPhone as a work email. No evidence presented anywhere otherwise that he sent it from home.
00:14:05
Speaker 2: And wouldn't they be able to prove that really quickly. Yes, Obviously forensics, the digital forensics teams that these police departments have, they can go into the computer and if they saw that Patrick Clancy sent an email from his home computer when he was supposed to be running errands, that would have been a massive red flag and it would have been found out very quickly, and it would have absolutely been a part of their investigation.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: And a reminder, folks, in a moment, stay here, a reminder, even with all of this evidence to debunk all of these conspiracy theories, it happened days ago in the trial. Something happened. An agreement between the defense and the prosecution would should have put all this to rest in the first place.
00:14:48
Speaker 2: To hear, Welcome back everyone to Amy, and we are talking about the wild conspiracy theories that have erupted exploded online, specifically TikTok. These internet sleuths who are convinced, convinced that the wrong person is on trial for murder. They believe Patrick Clancy is actually the person who murdered his three children, who pushed his wife out the window, and because she can't remember the events of that day. He has convinced her and the rest of the world that she is responsible for the murders, which is just beyond far fetched. When you have every single person in this case acknowledging and admitting and not disputing the fact that Lindsey Clancy in fact strangled her three children.
00:15:45
Speaker 1: There's no dispute at I mean they have, They've made a formal on the record agreement in court, a number of stipulations in which the defense concedes, Yep, she did that, Yep, she did that. Yep, that's her DNA, Yep, that's her blood that yes to all of it. You don't need to keep bringing in experts, chain of command, evidentiary custody type things. We don't need that because we agree she did all of this stuff. Even that robes. So you have both parties and Patrick, and you have everybody saying that we were there, we were on scene, this is what happened, and yet the Internet, looking at a couple of grainy photos, says they know better.
00:16:32
Speaker 2: It's wild because if you go on to some of these posts, and there are so many of them, each person maintaining and claiming that an innocent woman is being tried for a murder she didn't commit. They're literally saying, my heart goes out to her, she didn't do it. This is absolutely heartbreaking, she didn't do it. Like just it's NonStop comment after comment after comment, to the point where I am truly shocked, as in, are we watching this scene trial. Everyone's saying I felt her innocence the first time I laid eyes on her. It is interesting to see so many people wanting and needing to believe she didn't and couldn't have committed this crime that they're willing to literally put out falsehoods and flat out lies about her husband, And that to me is just that's the heartbreaking part. That people don't understand the real life consequences of peddling these conspiracy theories, fueling them, and then posting them. That there is a cruelty to that that I think is being lost on a lot of folks.
00:17:38
Speaker 1: I robes. I feel bad for this guy and his I mean, he's going to walk around now because a lot of this with people assuming he's a killer, a killer of his own children. Because of this stuff being pedaled, there are people who absolutely believe that.
00:17:53
Speaker 2: Oh I believe they believe it, and They've even gone so far as to say these voices that she said she was hearing that they him whispering to her what like that, that he was trying to make her believe that she did it, and he was whispering to her what we.
00:18:11
Speaker 1: Don't we don't do it in the other order. They always talk to you about reasonable doubt. Right, It's okay to have some doubt, but it has to be reasonable. Your suspicion needs to be reasonable as well. And what's being goes out there is not a reasonable suspicion of this guy. You're just running with anything, any little morsel, and twisting it to your own design. Because, like you said, Robes, we do we need a villain. We need to understand how this young mother would do this, and the best way to explain it for us is to say that she didn't do it, somebody else did and it makes more sense, and we're more comfortable with the man being the villain and the monster who could have done something like this and then set the woman up for it. That is a nice packaged narrative for some babe. That is dangerous.
00:19:02
Speaker 2: It is very dangerous. I actually feel physically ill at one of the posts. They were comparing him to Chris Watts. If anyone knows that story, and I covered it at Good Morning America, it is one of the worst stories ever about a man who killed his children and his wife. Why God, game would they do that? It is that is that is so dangerous and appalling and awful. They're talking about how he became a millionaire because of this, that he got one point seven million dollars in a GoFundMe, and that GoFundMe page where he spoke glowingly about his wife, by the way, the sale of the house and all the proceeds he got to keep. Now he's suing the doctors, going to get more money. So they're referring like how rich he's gotten from this? Are you absolutely for real?
00:19:48
Speaker 1: There's just you say stuff enough, you read stuff enough, and by some point even reasonable people will start going, hmmmm, well, I wonder it's just I hate what's happening. We've watched every second of this trial almost in folks, there is if nothing, anywhere, any any point that suggests anybody other than Lindsay clans to kill these kids.
00:20:14
Speaker 2: Yes, and I saw someone put it like this. I'm paraphrasing here, the prosecution she did it, the defense she did it. Lindsey Clancy, I did it. TikTok, he did it.
00:20:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what's happening. That's what's happening. So broke Yes, today is going to be a hell of a day. The theories will continue, but we have to be reasonable in our coverage of this, and something gets lost to robes. We're not are we Are we having more of a discussion about conspiracies than about him possibly doing it instead of women and a mental health crisis. How it's possible with the woman with this must much access to healthcare still ends up in this position. That is question number one. Be doing the series about it.
00:21:01
Speaker 2: And you know what, you make such a good point, babe, because not only are these conspiracy theories damaging and dangerous and just gutting to Patrick Clancy and his family, but it also takes away from the real issue we should be exploring, discussing, and actually could help women now and in the future, which is to actually examine what postpartum psychosis is and how we can recognize those signs and prevent another tragedy. That's where the focus should be. When you have all of these awful conspiracies theory theories. It does damage and harm, of course to Patrick Clancy, but it also I think takes away from a real opportunity to discuss something that hasn't been fully researched and funded. When you have psychiatrists coming up on the stand who have been in the profession for more than twenty years and have never treated or never recognized postpartum psychosis, that should be something that we're talking about, not deflecting and trying to pin it on someone who had nothing to do with these murders.
00:21:58
Speaker 1: So what's this going to do for the next for women having babies this year? How do you feel our new moms, how do you feel about telling somebody you're struggling after the coverage of this and discussions that are happening online, especially with a young mother, maybe so much of her audience and excuse me, so much what she's reading is online or on social media. What does this do in this conversation make a woman feel about maybe getting some help or mentioning to somebody. Does it make her want to cover it up even more or does it make her want to go, oh, hell, I better say something. I don't know, But the way we're talking about this right now, we are focused on the wrong thing to where we are still some circles and they're getting louder. Are not wanting to examine mental health? Are not wanting to deal with the possibility that this mom.
00:22:52
Speaker 2: Did it even though she says she did.
00:22:54
Speaker 1: Then we don't know. We're not just saying a mental health issue. This is a man issue. This is once again a man doing this to his wife, to his family. That narrative reads in some cases.
00:23:09
Speaker 2: Not here, no, no, and so yes. Not only do we want people to be reasonable, I think we want people to be responsible and recognize that putting conspiracy theories out there like that have and do real damage. Just wanted to put that in a radar case you've been on TikTok and seen any of these theories, please please please be reasonable and responsible. And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Roboc alongside TJ. Holmes. We'll talk soon.