Shocking New Conspiracy Theories Shake Up Lindsay Clancy Case

[MUSIC] At that point, he looked up in the screen, she killed the [bleep] kids. New conspiracy theories emerge as the Lindsay Clancy case takes over the internet. Could Patrick Clancy have been involved? And you recall what Patrick Clancy was doing when you first saw him. He was standing over Lindsay at that point. Could Lindsay Clancy have faked psychotic symptoms? We asked her how are you feeling, horrified, and then she wrote down, "Do I have an attorney?" And the current owner of the Duxbury home has an eerie connection to the case. I find it very disingenuous of the homeowner, who's an attorney, and not only is he an attorney. He was a prosecutor in our office. This is Scandal, presented by Lawn Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. [MUSIC] It's the trial that no one can stop talking about. And the conspiracy theories in the Lindsay Clancy case just will not slow down. I've been covering this case since the day the children died back in January 2023. And I was anticipating this trial, and mentally preparing for the horrific details that I'd have to report on. But what I did not anticipate was the way that this trial could captivate the nation. And dare say, even the world, I've actually had requests to appear on shows as far away as Ireland, to report on this case. And the reason for all of this may be the intense amount of conspiracy theories that have arisen since the trial began. And I have to admit, some of it stems from inconsistent testimony. >> Belger was what the date was? >> It's January 24 at 524. And that was sent from your, your surface broke? >> I don't know, actually, it could have been sent from my iPhone. >> And so you leave the house, you get into your car and you drive to CVS, correct? >> Correct. >> And so that should have taken three minutes, correct? >> Yep. >> So after the text that was sent at 515 PM, that would have been sometime around 518 or 520 PM that you should have arrived at CVS, correct? >> Right. >> But you don't go in until 532 PM, correct? >> I don't know. >> We've talked at length about Patrick's 524 surface pro-email. But the question viewers cannot stop asking is whether Patrick Clancy was properly investigated by Massachusetts authorities? >> You recall what if anything Patrick was saying as you encountered him? >> Upon his observation of us, myself and Officer Hall, he proceeded to head in our direction, leaving that room. And at that point, he looked up and he screamed, she killed the kids. There's another theory, or internet rumor, that maybe it wasn't even Patrick who went to CVS and 3V the night the children died, but a lookalike friend went instead. Others say that Lindsay may have faked her journal entries and symptoms. These people allege she may not have really tried to die by suicide. But the theory I personally cannot stop seeing is that the current homeowner of 47 Summer Street inducts very Massachusetts, the former Clancy home, used to work for the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office, the same office that is now prosecuting Lindsay. >> He bought this house after the horrific murder of three children occurred in that house, knowing that there would be a view someday. >> Some online speculate this homeowner has an in with the District Attorney's Office and cause them to charge Lindsay rather than Patrick with the murder of these three children. And here's where I have to state, Lindsay Clancy and her defense do not deny she killed her kids. They admit, on January 24, 2023, Lindsay used exercise bands to strangle her children, five-year-old Korra, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callin. After that, she slid her wrists and throat, took some crushed-up medications, and jumped from a second-story window in the home. She survived this suicide attempt, but remains paralyzed from the waist down. All of this happened while her then-husband Patrick Clancy was outrunning errands at CVS and then picking up dinner at a local restaurant. Lindsay has now been charged with three counts of murder in the deaths of her kids, and this is an important distinction here. Based on her plea, Lindsay does admit she killed the kids, however, her team argues she's not criminally responsible, because she lacked the capacity to understand her actions at the time. Essentially, the insanity defense in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, her trial is ongoing as we speak, and with it, each day new witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and arguments are made inside the courtroom. But the other court, the Court of Public Opinion, is also working over time in this case. Like a lot of people, I put off scheduling my doctor's appointments. I mean, I don't want to deal with phone calls, voicemails, or endless phone tag, and then when I finally call, the next opening is somehow months away. It always feels harder than it should, and that's why this episode is sponsored by ZockDock. ZockDock is a free app and website that lets you search and compare high quality in network doctors. They show reviews from real patients and detailed doctor profiles, so I can compare my options and choose the doctor that best fits my preferences. What's great about ZockDock is that I can see actual appointment openings and click to book without making phone calls back and forth. I make so many of my appointments through ZockDock now, and I don't have to make a single phone call. Your health matters, and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find and book the right doctor with ZockDock, head to ZockDock.com/scandal to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's ZockDock.com/scandal. So, let's begin with the Patrick Clancy doppelganger theory, okay? A viewer came to me directly with this theory, writing me a DM, that says. Hi there, Sierra. I'm watching your interview with the attorney speaking about the Lindsay Clancy case. Looking at the two photos of Patrick in CBS and the restaurant, please look at the shirt under the jackets. One is light in color, you can see at the color, and when he goes to put something in its pocket and the shirt in the restaurant is darker blue. The souls of the shoes are different as well, dark in CBS and light in restaurants. Also, his hair looks wavy in the restaurant, whereas it looks straight in CBS photos, just a few observations. Now, we've talked about the inconsistencies in the security camera video in other scandal episodes. Patrick is seen on camera walking into the CBS, wearing what appears to be brown boots and a half-zip jacket. Then, when he's caught on camera again, this time at the 3B restaurant, it looks like he's wearing tennis shoes and a full jacket rather than a half-zip. Now, the viewer who wrote into me and a few others have said that the shirt under the jacket looks different, too. And so, too, do the souls of the shoes. Now, this viewer points to Patrick having straight hair at CBS and then wavy hair at 3B. Some discourse alleged that Patrick had a friend visit at least one of these errand stops, pretending to be Patrick. And in fact, Patrick wasn't really there. Fuel is added to this fire, with Patrick's inconsistent testimony about the timeline not dying. So, you're two stops, then, that night we're going to be CBS in the 3B restaurant, correct? Yes. Where did you go first? CBS. And do you remember the route that you took to get there? Yeah, I went out our driveway, took a red-on-winter street, and then took a left on the main road, and went to CBS. So, it's a pretty direct route from your house to CBS? Yeah. Just going to have you look at the screen if you would to a map. Coming in to this red dot here, is that the approximate location of your phone at 4B, some street? Yeah. And then, looking at this pink dot here, next to big-life, is that where the CBS is located? Yes. And that's the CBS you went to that night? Yes. About how long did it take you to get there? Three minutes. Patrick testifies he left home at 515, and made a three-minute drive to CBS. That would put him at CBS at 518. And yet, he's not seen going into CBS on the security cam until 532. What's more, an email was sent from Patrick's Surface Pro, his physical computer at home at 524. You have an email sent from your, is it Surface Pro, is that what it's called? No, it was my laptop, yeah. Now, sir, exhibit 76, is an email from you to, and we will, kind of delete the yet, people that are running the email if I may run, as we back it as an exhibit. Let me approach you, does it indicate the date and the time? Very tough, you sent that email to you at 724. It does, yep. Go to your, is what the date was? It's January 24th at 524. And that was sent from your, your Surface Pro? I don't know, actually, it could have been sent from my iPhone. This came up again on redirect, because neither the Commonwealth or the Defence could really make sense of Patrick's timeline. Mr. Clancy, you were shown an email and it's been marked as an exhibit that you sent to co-workers on January 24th, 2023 at 524 PM, correct? Yeah. And you were asked about it coming from the Surface Pro, but your testimony was that it could have come from your iPhone, correct? Correct. And in fact, you watched footage earlier of yourself going into the CVS in in at 532 PM, correct? - Correct. - And you had your phone with you, correct? Because you used it. And we also saw you on the three V footage using your phone as well, correct? - Right. - So this, you were clearly out of the house at 524 PM, correct? - Sorry, what time did you say I was at CBS? - So you walked in at 532 PM, correct? - Correct. - And you left the house, as you were leaving the house, Lindsey sent you the text about PDLX, correct? - I don't know if I had left the house yet, but yeah. - But that was sent at 515 PM, correct? - Right. - And how far away is the Kingston CVS? - Three minutes. - Okay. And so you leave the house, you get into your car and you drive to CVS, correct? - Correct. - And so that should have taken three minutes, correct? So after the text that was sent at 515 PM, that would have been sometime around 518 or 520 PM that you should have arrived at CVS, correct? - Right. - But you don't go in until 532 PM, correct? - I don't know. - We could pay. - I don't know a time I pulled in the parking lot. - I'm not sure what time you pulled into the parking lot, but is it fair to say that the video that you were showing earlier shows you entering the store at 532 PM? - Yes. - So from the time you should have been at the parking lot of CVS around 520 PM until 532 PM could you have been in your car sending this email on your iPhone? - Yeah, I just don't know if I pulled into the parking lot at 520. - But sometime after the text was sent from Lindsay about PDLX, but before 532 PM, you were in your car. - Correct. - So was it really Patrick Clancy on those tapes? Is he really the one who would do CVS than then the 3V restaurant? - We're gonna take a deeper dive into all of this during our interview with expert criminal defense attorney Matt Tempannik, but the consensus is, yes, it's Patrick. Neither the Commonwealth or the defense has disputed this. It's never once been brought up in court that it was not Patrick on the security tapes. So while it may look different and maybe Patrick really did change his shoes or his jacket, it doesn't mean it wasn't Patrick. And that leads to the next conspiracy theory that Patrick Clancy wasn't appropriately investigated by police. A viewer commented on one of my videos. He's not charged because his family is the police. Another viewer also wrote, "Honest, are you following the whole entire story? To which I say yes, it is literally my job to do so." But back to the conspiracy theory that Patrick Clancy was not investigated properly after the children were found dead. And this is hard, right? Because there have definitely been cases of police corruption over the years. It's not unheard of, but oftentimes, investigators can't give us all of the information because it could either compromise the integrity of the investigation or let something out. I mean, it's nothing nefarious, generally. Sometimes here at Longcrime, we don't even get all the exhibits or body cam, interview recordings, all of that until after a case has been adjudicated. That means the person has tried. They're either convicted or acquitted. And in the case that they're convicted, sometimes we even have to wait until there's sentence to get the complete evidence. We might not get all the info until years after the crime. That being said, it's possible there's more information about Patrick, Clancy, out there. We're just not privy to it yet. What I can tell you, though, is that all the evidence we do have is now in one place. For behind every major scandal is a paper trail the public rarely gets to see. If you haven't heard yet, you can go beyond the headlines with case files on the Law and Crime Plus app. This is where you get direct access to the raw evidence. Uncensored body camera recordings, crime scene images, video recordings of interrogations, and so much more. You can analyze the facts and uncover the truth for yourself. Plus, you get ad-free streaming of all of your favorite law and crime and court TV shows. Unlock the evidence room today. Head over to lawandcrimeplus.com enter promo code scandal and start your 30-day free trial. But back to Patrick Clancy and his investigation. Now I can understand why people want more information here. How often have we said the phrase? It's always the husband. So let's walk through the investigation, the date, the Clancy kids were killed. - And so you mentioned talking to someone on 911. At what point did you call 911? - I don't know the exact time, but it took a few minutes because my phone was switching between Wi-Fi and 911. So I almost just started calling out for the neighbors, but eventually it went through. - Okay, so you had some difficulty connecting, but eventually you connected to the 911 operator? - Yeah. - Okay. And did you stay on the phone with them while they were sending people to respond? - Yeah. - According to a release from the District Attorney's Office, that 911 call Patrick made was at 6.11 PM on January 24th, 2023. Now we have a timestamp. Patrick entering the CVS at 5.32 and then later leaving the 3v restaurant at 5.54 PM. Mean it. If he was responsible for what happened to the kids, there would be a 17-minute window to carry all of that out. Mind you, the expert medical examiner has pinpointed Kura and Dawson's time of death between 5.15 and 6.00 PM. Experts testified it would take six to eight minutes to die by strangulation. So that's upwards of 24 minutes to kill all three kids. So logistically, that's a very tight timeline to carry out three-legature strangulations. Now Patrick testified and took first responders about four or five minutes to arrive. Here's testimony from one of them. - Does that mean that he was then coming around the house over here by the garage on the left and the porch, the death? - Yes, that's correct. - And when you came around there, what did you see? - I made my way. I observed two parties, one lying in the ground and one standing over it. And I started to make my way towards the other end of the house, which is as towards this fence, as you guys can see in reference to that photo. - And so when you say the other end of the house, you're talking about this area here, the father's, for this right with those. - Yes, that is correct. - And the person that was standing, did you later learn that was Patrick Clancy? - Yes, I did. - And the person on the ground, did you later learn that was Lindsay Clancy? - Yes, I did. - Do you recall what Patrick Clancy was doing when you first saw him? - He was standing over Lindsay at that point. It appeared that he was trying to communicate with her. I observed him with a cell phone. It was kind of down by his side. So I don't know if they were talking or what, but it was probably split second. And then he turned in my location, saw me, 'cause I was illuminating the yard with my flashlight. And then that's when me and him crossed paths. - Okay. And so you said you saw him with a cell phone by his side. Was it in his hand by his side? - Yes, I believe as soon as he left him. - Okay, and you said you crossed paths with him. But approximately where did you cross paths with him? - It was probably right by the bulkhead, I would say. - And so in the photograph, to the right of the deck is the bulkhead is that correct? - That is correct. - And where was he headed? - He was heading, I believe, up towards the deck. Yeah, obviously I didn't know it at that time, but he was just walking past me pretty fast in a broad manner, so. - And did he say anything to you as he passed? - No, he did not. - First responders testified to Patrick's reaction after heading down to the basement. - And at some point in time, do you hear something? - Yes. - What do you hear? - Myself and Officer Hall. We're standing by that window and we just started hearing loud screams. - And what did you do when you heard those loud screams? - We immediately were trying to figure out where they were coming from, I'm not sure if this bat or something came over the air and said something about the basement, but we both just started making our way back towards the deck part of the house. - Did you then head to the basement? - Yes. - Okay, and could you hear any sounds coming from the basement as you entered the kitchen? - Yes, it was the exact screaming that I heard from the window. - And did you go down the stairs to the basement? - Yes, we did. - And did you see anything as you went down the stairs after you went down the stairs? - So we went down the stairs and it was a picture at the bottom of the stairs, I believe, of Lindsey and Patrick. And the basement splits off into two, a right and a left area. And the screams were coming from the right area, so that's where we directed our attention to first. - And did you see Patrick? - Yes, that right side opens up and it's like two rooms, I believe. So we went into the Ferris Room, which was kind of dark. And there was some clutter and stuff around. And Patrick was in that back room at the time. - You recall what if anything Patrick was saying as you encountered him? - Upon his observation of us, myself and Officer Hall, he proceeded to head in our direction, leaving that room. And at that point, he looked up and he screamed, she killed kids. And after he said that, where did you go? - Once he cleared himself from the door frame, we were able to look inside the room where we observed what appeared to be a child laying motionless on the floor. - Police say they have since confirmed Patrick's alibi being at CVS and 3V, at the time the medical examiners testified the children were killed. There has been no formal accusation that Patrick Clancy was involved. It has not been disclosed, discussed in court. What has been discussed, though, is Patrick's cooperation with the investigation, for example, turning over evidence to investigators. >> At that point in time, did you or any of the other officers know that the defendant had crushed up pills and taken them that night? >> No. >> At some point in time, did Patrick Clancy bring pill bottles to the state police and turn them over? >> Yes, he did. >> And where did he say those were found? >> In the center console of his truck, not the top section, the section underneath it. >> Did he tell you at some point that pills had been found in the nightstand drawer? >> Yes, he did. >> And that was in the master bedroom? >> Yes. >> And did he tell you who he found those with? >> Yes, he did. >> And who was that? >> Is it, Tony? >> He said Kevin Rayington. >> And did he tell you why he gave the pills to Attorney Reddington instead of giving them to you like he gave the other pills? >> No, he did not. >> He never attempted to turn those pills into the state police or those bottles into the state police. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Patrick gave investigators these pills and also Lindsay's Apple Watch, which by the way has raised a lot of eyebrows, but let's move on to the next conspiracy theory. And this one is kind of hard to prove because we can't really see it. And that's Lindsay's mental state leading up to and the exact time of her children's deaths. >> I'm speculating, Lindsay may have been feigning her symptoms and wasn't really going through postpartum psychosis at the time she killed her kids. One Reddit user wrote, "For me, it's the testimony from all the doctors and various providers who have all testified that they saw no signs of psychosis and that she seemed to be doing better leading up to the day in question. There is no factual evidence of any kind of psychosis or anything that would make you say, wow, she really lost touch with reality. All we have is her word saying that that day she heard a voice. I just don't think legally speaking that's enough for insanity defense. I also don't think that being critical of her defense means that one is generally lacking empathy for postpartum psychosis and depression. And to be fair, that's partially true. Multiple Commonwealth witnesses have testified. There were no signs of psychosis with Lindsay Clancy. >> In your conversation with Ms. Clancy, did you notice any internal or external signs of psychosis? >> At the time, I documented that I did not note those. >> And did you also note that she was, her thinking was linear, goal-oriented, thoughtful, and she didn't appear to be responding to internal stimuli? >> Yes, that is typical language and psychiatric mental statuses, and I did document that. Would it be fair that some of the obvious signs of psychosis would be someone whose thoughts are disorganized, that they're thinking isn't linear, that they're not making sense, things like word salad, where they're just throwing in words, making sense is that don't make sense? >> So you describe symptoms that we can see in people with serious mental illness who have a psychotic disorder with active symptoms? >> And you didn't see any of that with Ms. Clancy, is that correct? >> Not in that snapshot moment of time. >> And it wasn't just one witness who testified to this. >> When you say mania and psychosis are those two different things? >> Yes. >> And so are you also looking in these screenings to identify signs of psychosis? >> Absolutely. >> And what would be signs of psychosis usually? >> Signs of psychosis, they can be sort of subtle, it might look like somebody's like responding to stimuli in their head, based on the way that their eyes are kind of tracking and they're not really paying attention, they may be quite guarded, they may have a delusional thought process. For example, they might think that somebody's out to get them when there's really no basis. And as far as your observations of her presentation, like her mood and physically how she presented, anything stand out to you as far as any of that? >> She appeared, she seemed anxious. I observed her thought process to be linear, meaning you could follow it. Her train of thought easily, I'm goal directed, she understood that she was there. To be assessed for treatment, seemed to be her goal. >> But there's also discussion that Lindsay was of sound mind based on her request after the children's deaths, for example. So we asked her, you know, how are you feeling, horrified, and then she wrote down, do I have an attorney? >> Additionally, she asked for an immediate change of her proxy. >> The purpose is we had consulted the psychiatry team to evaluate and determine capacity. And my role as the ICU nurse is advocacy on behalf of the patient and to alert the providers if there's any changes in the mental status. >> Now when they came in and you said advocate for their position, you're aware that the patient was looking to change her healthcare proxy, correct? The patient was changing her healthcare proxy, that is correct. We made reference to the fact that she was changing her documents as far as healthcare proxy. >> Yes. >> Did you know anything? Did you know who she was changing it from her husband to her mother and father, or did you know anything about the specifics? >> She was changing it from Patrick to her parents. >> Thank you. >> Others point to Lindsay's search history, alleging she researched psychosis to know how to feign the symptoms. Some of the other searches that you did would be -- or you were aware that there were searches for medical, such as questions regarding bipolar symptoms, psychosis. Can you be in DKA without high blood sugar, page after page after page, treasidone, treasidone, what does the effect of treasidone, well butrin, how do you feel on treasidone? >> I have had a van addiction, ProZec, treasidone going on and on and on. You guys saw this on the search on her phone, right? >> I recall those searches, sir. >> Patrick testified he never even heard about psychosis or Lindsay hearing voices until after Lindsay killed the kids and after she asked for an attorney. >> She said she heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't do it now, she would lose her chance or something like that. And did she also tell you that she had had a moment of psychosis? >> I don't recall. >> Did she mention the children at all during that call? >> I don't think so. Not directly. >> Had she ever mentioned psychosis to you before? >> No, I didn't know what psychosis was until after this happened. Did she ever tell you she was hearing a man's voice before? >> No. >> These are relatively compelling witnesses saying Lindsay showed no signs of psychosis and even did some research about the term, but I have to note, these are commonwealth witnesses. A defense witness gave much different testimony. >> What was her state of mind that caused her to have a voluntary commitment to the locked words of the client in class? >> She was worried about killing herself and she uttered concerns about killing her children. What about, did she relate any intrusive thoughts and dark thoughts, things of that age during this period of time, October, November, and December? >> Yes, don't be about that. >> She said she had quote, horrible thoughts, unquote. She felt that people could actually hear her thoughts, the thoughts were so loud that strangers could hear them sometimes. >> At that point, for example, that she was concerned about schoolteachers with the little sprouts school with the kids that they could read her thoughts and that she would lose custody. >> Yes, it's called ideas of reference. You believe other people can hear what you're thinking and that can have a very negative interpretation for the person believing that, feeling that and thinking that the outcome is going to be a negative one that their children may be relieved from their care. People with psychoses have intermittent symptoms. They can function fine one day. And the next day, they can be hearing voices. They could be seeing things, feeling things, smelling things to be clear. There's additional types of hallucinations, did not plague Miss Clancy. She only had auditory hallucinations. But hallucinations are like the waves at the beach, they come and go. >> They're called waxing and waning? >> Yes. >> And would you tell me Dr. in your opinion is an individual and we refer to postpartum psychosis as that particular affliction that afflicks women that have had babies and they go through a period of postpartum depression and then ultimately postpartum psychosis. >> Yes. >> And you tell us is a person even if they are in the throes of psychosis? Are they able to make a phone call? >> Yes. -Are they able to drive a car? -Yes. Are they able to say, "Hi, Hawaii?" I'd like you to have it either. Yes. They don't have to look at the unicorn in the corner, right? That's correct. Even Patrick, while a commonwealth witness, testified to symptoms he specifically saw in Lindsay. She also tell you at that time at the beginning of December that she was having some other intrusive thoughts. Yeah. Is that how she described them or how you described them intrusive thoughts? I would say both. OK. And when she told you that she was having intrusive thoughts, did you ask her what they were? Yeah. And what was her response? She described thoughts of hurting the kids or having-- or them having some sort of ailment. So she was very worried that Korra had-- whenever she had a stomach ache, she became overly worried that she had a liver problem or something much more dramatic than it was. OK. But going back to that first part, she said she had thoughts of harming the kids. Is that correct? Yeah. And did she tell you whether or not she had specific thoughts of how she would harm the kids? No. And she didn't describe that as hearing this external voice telling her to harm the kids, correct? Correct. She told you she was having intrusive thoughts. Her self of harming the children, correct? Correct. The journal entries could kind of cut both ways. Some say this was a sign of a woman who was really struggling. Others say they were fake. One Reddit user wrote, do her journal entries factor into the way you feel about this case at all? Do you think she made them up? Or do you think they just point to postpartum anxiety and not psychosis? Very curious about her journal. It reads very bleak to me. And in those first few pages, just highlighting page one, you reviewed these handwritten entries. And at some point in this paragraph, it says, obsessed with his sleep and nap schedule like to the minute. Says hearing him cry for one plus hours and not intervening just about killed me. I even said the words I want to die to pat while he was crying. After that, I became obsessed with his sleep and nap schedule like to the minute. That's one of the entries you reviewed and wrote it. This is a notes app entry Lindsey also reportedly made. I'm sad and depressed because I'm not able to parent my third child like my first. I want to treat anyone of my babies like my first. But I know that's not a feasible possibility. I'm sad that I stopped the press feeding. I feel not as connected with Cal now. I think I sort of resent my other children because they prevent me from treating Cal like my first baby. And I know that's not fair to them. I know that. I was feeling so depressed last evening when Koran Dawson came home from school. I know her runs off on them so we had a pretty rough evening. I want to feel love and connection with all my kids. I'm also probably having a bit of an internal conflict because my whole life I wanted to have a lot of kids. I still don't want Cal to be our last, but I have a lot of figuring out to do before I have another. I'm on the fence about starting a new medication for anxiety/depression. I just want to feel happy. I want to be able to relax and take care of my kids. And when they go to bed at night, I want to deeply relax and hang out with Pat and then fall into a deep sleep for eight hours, get up and pour hard into myself for an hour and a half. Cal was so very planned and desired. I want to be able to give him all the love he deserves. I guess that's what it's like to be the third child though. He's not the first third child to ever exist. I think I know he'll be okay, but it's really hard for me. I hate that he has to put himself to sleep. I'm sad I'm not breastfeeding anymore, but I think deep down these are the right choices. For this one, there's really no way to know. Only Lindsay Clancy herself knows what was going on in her mind at the time. But we do know, based on her plea, she believes she had a psychotic break and therefore cannot be held criminally responsible for murder. Once again, who's charging her with that murder? Well, the charges have been brought on by the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office and that's where another major conspiracy theory comes into play. A viewer came directly to me with this, sending me a TikTok and writing, "Girl, did you see this?" Well, the video she sent me was an explainer saying that the person who now owns the Clancy home previously worked for the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office and that allegedly this person was conspiring with Patrick to frame Lindsay Clancy. Again, this is the conspiracy theory that has not been brought up in court or substantiated at all. The new homeowner is a man by the name of Michael Thippen. According to his LinkedIn, he was an ADA for Plymouth County between April 2016 and December 2018. To be clear, he started work there before Lindsay and Patrick were even married and ended work there five years before the children were killed. According to the New Haven Register, he now oversees Stark and Latica's Criminal Defense Department and even has his own criminal practice. The Register reports he purchased the former Clancy home in January 2024 for $675,000. And the reason we know about all of this is because of the jury view. This is from a pretrial hearing on June 18th, 2026. - Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. And what is your clients' position in regards to the Commonwealth's motion for review one, this address? - Thank you, Ron. The homeowner, the current homeowner, is opposed to the motion. The current homeowner did give the criminal access to the property. They had unlimited time to photograph, measure, examine the property. The homeowner has felt like he has gone so out of his way to be accommodating to this point in the hopes that it wouldn't involve folks with a rioting at the home. It would be massively disruptive to the homeowner. Your honor is certainly well-known. And I know for my prior appointment that a view is an event. I don't want to call the circus as out of fairware, but it's an event that a bus shows up. There's probably state police keeping in the nature of this case. He has neighbors, he's in a neighborhood. He has a live and domestic partner who works from home. They have pets, but also note your honor that given the complexity of the matter that all the parties face in this case, that exact date and time of that view are probably unsure and probably subject to change at this point. I don't know how long my client would have to have his phone available to the court. So for those reasons and given his cooperation and sort of leading up to today's date, where he's been very accommodating, I think, to the government, he would ask the court not to further disrupt his life. To insinuate that Michael Thippen was working with the district attorney's office in a conspiracy is really disturbing. This is more than five years after he left the office, by the way. This thought is completely undermining the ethics of the entire Plymouth County DA's office. And you can feel, however, you want about the prosecution in this case, but one thing you can't deny is that they were heated when Michael Thippen's attorney didn't want to show his home as part of the jury view. And we did go in with the homeowner's permission to take photographs, to take measurements, however, seeing something in person, seeing how things relate to each other, how long it takes to get from the basement where these children were executed, one by one, up to the bedroom where the defendant went after doing so. Seeing the height from the window that she dropped down to, seeing how low that window is from the perspective, from the ground is something that the jury's entitled to see in person. And I find it very disingenuous of the homeowner, who's an attorney, and not only is he an attorney, he was a prosecutor in our office. So he knows how we handle cases. He knows how we do trials. And now he's a defense attorney in this county who works with our office. So he knows how things work. And he bought this house after the horrific murder of three children occurred in that house, knowing that there would be a view someday. So I find it very disingenuous that at this point, he's concerned about his privacy. So I would ask if the motion be allowed. We know what the judge ultimately decided, as a jury view of the home was held on July 31st. Theory after theory, but are they fact? Most of the theories haven't even been touched on in court, and yet people, myself included, cannot stop talking about them. So let's talk about them a little bit more, shall we? But let's do it now with an expert. It's criminal defense attorney Matt Timpanic. And Matt, thank you for coming on the show. You're actually from Plymouth, Massachusetts, right? Yes, I lived there for the first 25 years of my life until I moved to Florida. I grew up in my house, growing up as maybe six miles from the courtroom. Oh my god, wow. And so you can really kind of give us a closer look at what it's like, because a lot of people are wondering, you know, what is Ducksbury like? What is this South Shore area if you're not from Massachusetts? So can you kind of describe the area a little bit? So if we're quick history lesson, when the pilgrims founded Plymouth 1620, some of the people eventually left. I think Ducksbury was founded 15, 20 years after that. So Ducksbury is next town over, two towns over. It is a very affluent place where some of the richest people in the South Shore live. So you think go acid, hang them, and Ducksbury are the three most affluent areas on the South Shore. And they are filled, like some of the stories I could tell you about Ducksbury. And I'll give one a perfect example. A family once created a second staircase for their kids so they wouldn't have to interact with each other while walking down the stairs. That's Ducksbury and a nutshell. Oh wow. Okay, yeah. I mean, I've driven by there like on my way to the Cape and seen the homes and their idyllic, their beautiful, their quintessential New England. And not where you'd expect something like this to happen. I mean, you talked about Plymouth is literally where the pilgrims came. So that obviously is historic. And now we're talking about a historic trial in the 21st century. So I have to ask you, I really wasn't expecting conspiracy theories to kind of run rampant in this case because I thought kind of open and shut case. What were you surprised by all of that? I'm really not. When I, having done this for five plus years, every case where there's big publicity, content creators are always going to try to push some conspiracy because that's what generates clicks and cash. You saw it on the Karen Read case, Richard Delphi, every single case then. So now the newest one is Patrick Clancy allegedly killed his children and then framed his wife. Gaslight is what, gaslit his wife into thinking she actually killed the kids, which was shocking. But at the same time, not surprising at all, somebody would come up with that. Yeah, honestly, I get a little bit frustrated sometimes when I'm going through and I'm seeing these TikToks and people start believing and buying into all of it. And I'm over here like, are we watching the same case? This hasn't been discussed. But then I do have to go through and say, okay, this is a potential theory. Let's follow up and do our homework. So let's talk about that one, the idea, the theory, conspiracy theory, the Patrick Clancy actually killed his children, convinced Lindsay to kind of take the fall for him and take the blame. A lot of people are saying he never even was investigated at all by police. What do you have to say for that? Well, so when you think of what actually happened, you're thinking, where did this conspiracy come from? As you always, it came from online, it didn't come from inside the courtroom. The defense is not contesting that Lindsay Clancy killed her kids. The defendant herself has admitted to it. The prosecution is claiming as such, the Patrick Clancy, everybody who was actually involved in the trial is saying the same thing. And you think Kevin Reddington, one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the Commonwealth, if he had that and he thought it was reasonable, wouldn't he use that in the case to potentially get his client an acquittal if he actually believes she was innocent? No, he knows she did it. She knows she did it. And it's people online trying to create something that just isn't there. I've gone back to that time and time again because Kevin Reddington is really impressive in the courtroom. We saw that when it was the Commonwealth's case in chief. It's almost like he essentially took Commonwealth witnesses and turned them into defense witnesses. He does a really good job for the defense at the very least. And I think that's why people are so invested in the case. It's interesting to watch and see what he does with it. But to your point, if Kevin Reddington really thought that Patrick Clancy maybe had something to do with all this, why would he plead, you know, not guilty, not criminally responsible for Lindsay? I don't think that that would happen. And I guess one of the things I have to point to, I'm sure you've seen it. Is the video of Patrick at CVS and then at 3V, that he changed his boots, his outfit. Some people are even saying it was a different person. He enlisted one of his friends to come into CVS, into 3V, whatever it may be, so that he could be at the house allegedly killing the kids. I mean, what investigators even panting mind to that allegation? No, because when they had, when you're investigating a crime from law enforcement perspective, then when it actually gets to us, the attorneys, they're like, okay, what are other possible theories? Let's make sure that before we actually plead, not guilty by reason of insanity, which is the defenseless saying, my client did it, but she should be found not guilty by reason of diminished capacity. So if we want to go make a legally blonde reference, Men's Rea is what is needed, negating Men's Rea is what is required to get a not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning that the mental illness that she possessed at the time of the incident substantially impaired her ability to know right from wrong. So if you actually thought, if you'd defense story that your client didn't commit it, you would be arguing somebody else, like a plan B, like blame the husband or something. Kevin Rennington knows Patrick Clancy didn't commit these offenses. That's why he didn't try to thumb him during trial. He was the first witness in the case. And the reason, I think I said this on live now from Fox, prosecution called him because this guy's been living a nightmare that hasn't ended for over four years, and they wanted him on the stand, ask the questions, get him off and allow him to move on with his life. So this idea that it's like, oh, the husband did it, like, because I've seen it, because I posted stuff and seen the TikToks and I'm like, where are you getting? Because of one CVS video, that's what you're, that's what you're basing this on. And the people who like push these content creators, they know most of them know it's not true, but the people who pay their bills don't know it's not true. Yeah, this is one of those cases where it's not a who done it. So many of the cases that we cover, it's, you know, oh, was it the husband? Was it the boyfriend? Or right from the jump, it's no Lindsey claimed that she did do it. She said that she did, but to your point, she's not guilty because she wasn't criminally responsible. She lacked the capacity to understand the difference between right from wrong. And I guess this kind of, we were talking a lot about the TikTokers and the content creators who are kind of pushing these narratives about the conspiracy theories. And I'm wondering, do you think people just want to solve the case? I mean, we've seen so many, you know, Netflix documentaries or Hulu or whatever it may be, where people come together, they're zooming in on Google Maps, they're looking at security camera video and that helps police in the case. Is that just what people are hoping to do here? A lot of people when they are following true crime cases, they want to feel that it's coming to a resolution like it's a plot twist or something nobody sees coming, as opposed to, because the truth is often very boring in true crime cases, like who did it? A wife died. Yeah, probably nine of some of the time it's the husband. And that's just common sense bit and what is past history has told us. But what's happened in the last, I'd say, especially 10, 5, 10 years is the emergence of social media and true crime where people are able to get their theories and they're able to bounce ideas off other people and like, no, I think the same thing. I also think it was a husband and people like, well, I'm not the crazy one because multiple people or thousands of people, whoever, think the same thing. And it's this confirmation bias. That is what has created this idea that everything is a conspiracy because if something is like, oh, this person did it or whatever, that doesn't get people to click on your podcasts. It doesn't get people to click on your blog. If people just keep scrolling, but they're like, oh, wow, there's a mystery to be solved. I want to be the one who does it. Yeah. And I mean, people are clicking on our conspiracy theory stories here in Longcrime. I mean, I think this is the second or third story that I've done where I go through and I look at viewer send me DMs or comments or whatever and they say, oh, here's the new theory. And we go through and look at them. Do they hold any water? Are they credible? And we go through point by point. And you and I have talked a lot about Patrick, maybe a doppelganger, maybe someone else, whatever. So we went through that conspiracy theory. But the next one is that some people are wondering whether Lindsey Clancy is faking her symptoms, whether she made up these journal entries, almost like the movie Gone Girl where ahead of time she wrote down, oh, I'm feeling bad or whatever it may be. And she really was feigning her symptoms. What are your thoughts to that theory? I think one of the strongest witnesses for the defense was the defendant's ex mother and law. So this is something that's like this woman's three grandkids were killed by the defendant. She has every reason to want to see her in prison for the rest of her life. But she doesn't do that because she knew that Lindsey Clancy was screaming out for help or anybody over medicated suffering from postpartum psychosis. And by doing so, it's like, no, she was not herself very clearly based on her actions. She was yelling for anybody and nobody did anything. So when you think about that, it's like, oh, when people on the jurors like, I can't even imagine what my mother-in-law would say, much less my ex mother-in-law by her testifying in her defense positively, that should tell us all that we need to know about what she actually thinks of the defendant. The prosecution could argue, well, Patrick Clancy is a lawsuit against the hospitals and the doctors. So she has every incentive like him to want to see Lindsey Clancy be found not guilty by reason of insanity because when that happens, the hospitals are never going to try that civil case. They are going to cut an enormous $24, $30, $40, $50 million check to make it go away because they're not going to want the surface. And here, all their, the information, because what we've only been given is the tip of the iceberg about the mistakes made. If we had a full civil trial, think the take care of my, the things that would come out. So when you think about it, it's like, I definitely think that based on what has been presented, Lindsey Clancy is probably going to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. >> Yeah, and I think Sue Clancy's testimony was really shocking in ways because she said something, I believe it was, Lindsey was begging for help. And to your point, any of us imagine our in-laws testifying and against us for us, rather, even after something like this would have happened, shocking to say the very least. And okay, the next thing I have to ask you to, so we talked about Patrick Lindsay. The next is the DA of it all. And this one, I don't even know what to say about. Okay, so Patrick Clancy sold the house in Dexbury, right? And a person who bought it, formerly used to, work for the Plymouth County DA's office. Not recently, not since Patrick and Lindsay had this whole incident happen, not at all. But people are saying, oh my God, he purchased the house, he had something to do with all of this. That's why Patrick wasn't arrested. I'm just going to leave that there and ask you what are your opinions? Again, this is one of those creating something out of nothing. When you think about it, why Patrick Clancy sold the house, it doesn't take a rocket scientist. You do not want to step foot in the place where your three kids were killed. You do not want to be walking into their bedroom every single day, looking that they're not there and they're never coming back. So the fact that it's a Plymouth County district from our ADA in Plymouth County is just a coincidence. I'm sure that DA probably got a big discount because of what happened, because you have to disclose that when you're selling a house, oh, by the way, three killed kids were killed here. And somebody, Plymouth District Attorney, Houses and Ducksbury are exceptionally expensive. And so it's saying, well, get it out of discount. It's not like a, oh, well, he definitely had, he's got to cover up the evidence to make sure that she's actually held responsible. No, it's just a coincidence, sometimes that's just what happened. And, you know, to your point, I live in Massachusetts, I have been house hunting and I researched it and I believe he purchased the home for $675,000. And I was like, steel, oh my God, for that area, you and I were talking about how that's an affluent area, to have a house, it's very expensive, but compared to surrounding areas it could be at least a million dollars if not more for a house that needs a lot of repairs. So I can understand why he would purchase the house based on the pricing of it all, could be a major coincidence. And okay, so we've talked a lot about the conspiracy theories of all of this. And I do have to wonder, we've been talking about how it's on TikTok, Facebook, wherever, anybody who's anybody is talking, my therapist today this morning, I therapy and she was asking me about a couple of things, but I have to wonder about the jury. I mean, they're not supposed to be researching any of this, obviously, they're supposed to listen to the testimony, take notes in their notebook, maybe they can go back and look at exhibits or transcripts or whatever, but I don't even know that they're picking up on the conspiracy theories of all this, what do you think? Thankfully, they're not online, so they're not seeing some of the things and they'd be instructed if they heard anything from their spouses or children to disclose that as like, hey, just to let you know, my kid was online and he told me that this conspiracy that was Patrick Clancy, I wanted to make it known, I'm not looking, but he was. So thankfully, they're sequestered, meaning that they're not to look on social media, they're not reading the Boston Herald, they're not reading the globe, they're not reading the Patriot Head ledger, where I'm sure some of these are coming out and especially online. So when you're thinking about the evidence, thankfully, this case is not like, you're not seeing like huge crowds and tailgates outside the courtroom for this case, the jury is just like, okay, it's either she's guilty or she's not guilty by reason of insanity, they're not like, or there's a third one where she didn't actually do that. So they only have two choices where to choose from. I believe they added the lesser included offense of second-degree murder, which is still life in Massachusetts, but they're not, they're not tangling with like three or four separate theories, some of which are just absurd online conspiracies. I have to remind people that there is a major difference between the court of public opinion and then the justice system, the real court, and it's up to the jurors to decide the fate of Lindsey Clancy, you know, is she guilty or is she not guilty, not criminally responsible based on mental disease or defect. And it seems like pretty soon we're going to be heading into closings and verdict watch and all of that. I know you're going to be following the case, so I'd love to have you back on Matt and Panic. Thank you for stopping by scandal and giving us your insight. Thank you. We're going to continue to follow this case and bring you the latest updates right here on scandal. And for complete live coverage of this trial, make sure to tune into long crime where we're live streaming it with gavvl to gavvl coverage. And that is where today's episode of scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on social media, you can find me on places like Instagram at Sierra, Gillespie. Thanks for watching today's episode of scandal, as always I'm your host Sierra Gillespie and I'll see you next time. [BLANK_AUDIO]