Patrick Clancy: What the Internet Did While Lindsay's Case Was in Court

Tony Brueski (0:02)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Green.

Tony Brueski (0:09)

Aren't you glad we came to a conclusion where the whole country gets together and goes, ah, we all see it the same way?

The Lindsay Clancy case. Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

The trial ended obviously without a verdict. Online, everybody seems completely certain though, in their point of view, not only about Lindsay Clancy, anyone who sees the case differently than themselves. A man online claims he called off his $200,000 wedding after his fiance told him that as a man, he could never fully understand postpartum mental illness. His takeaway was that he had almost married a monster. Whether that's real or not is up for debate. But this is happening. Relationships are fracturing. People are at each other based on their opinions on this case.

Maybe that story is real. Maybe it's a social media theater. Either way, the reaction is real. We've reached a point where disagreeing about this case apparently tells people everything they need to know about your morality, your marriage and whether you're safe to be around. We're going to be getting into that today on this program because we need to. Shavaun Scott is with a psychotherapist and author as well as Robindrik, retired FBI Special Agent and Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program.

Shavaun, what is it about the Lindsay Clancy case that makes people need such a clean, absolute answer here? I mean, the deaths were horrific. The mental health evidence was complicated. Even the jury couldn't agree. What does that uncertainty?

Why does that uncertainty make people so angry at one another?

Shavaun Scott (1:55)

Isn't it weird? I have just had to stay off social media. Well, I do try to monitor the buzz on social media, but I get so frustrated. I just have to log off because of the viciousness and this emotional intensity.

My term of the day is moralization as identity fusion.

Tony Brueski (2:18)

I had to write that down.

Shavaun Scott (2:19)

Yeah. This is where people have bought into a story, whichever, and they're making it two sides. It's all about their moral identity.

When they see somebody that has a different point of view, it's not that we just maybe can discuss this and come to a conclusion and maybe we'll agree to disagree. It's like my identity is tied up in this position I've taken. You're evil. I'm the crusader for righteousness. It's all about righteousness and it's volatile. I even caught on, I saw it on Instagram. I don't know if it was on TikTok or not. But somebody yesterday, I believe, who had obviously a cloned voice of Patrick's father. You can do AI cloning now with anybody's voice and make them say anything. The quality was really bad and they had no good explanation for how they got this saying that Patrick had done it.

Fortunately, there was some pushback on that. I had to comment on that and say, do you know anything about voice cloning and how easy this is to do?

Tony Brueski (3:30)

Of course not. Yeah.

Shavaun Scott (3:32)

Of course not. But you have to wonder, what is this crusade, this moral crusade with these two sides?

I thought we had seen as bad as it could get around politics in recent years, right? I think this has even more intensity than the political debates on social media.

Tony Brueski (3:54)

It does. I want to talk about that with Patrick a bit. Patrick's attorney has released a statement basically saying, we're going to go after you if you're saying that he did this, and that's in a nutshell. I've been saying good for weeks. I think we were probably the first show that came out with an attorney on the air and said, how should Patrick start suing people?

I fully, because it's insane. It's utterly insane. We've purposely made headlines on this show about people's curiosity on Patrick, so they can, maybe Patrick did do something, then they watch it and, sorry, blew that out of the water for you, it ain't true. I think that's good because it gets people to hear what reality actually is. But why is that with Patrick? People taking fake audio and sharing it as if it's fact, taking conjecture about his life that isn't even based on reality or fact, and we got a whole segment about Patrick we'll get to, so I don't want to go too far down there. But it just seems, it's nuts. People are, it's the celebrity, I'm disconnected from you enough, even though Patrick's not a celebrity, but he's a public figure now because of this case.