Patrick Clancy's Alibi Is Airtight And The Theory Keeps Growing

**SPEAKER_1** (0:03)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke.

**Tony Brueski** (0:10)
So apparently, a lot of people think Patrick Clancy is the one who actually took the lives of the children, and somehow, magically, she's been covering for him for three years, and I don't know, we're going to talk about it today, and I welcome your thoughts and your comments in the comment section on Substack and YouTube as we go through this Facebook, wherever you're watching, I'm going to watch them. And if you got a comment, if you got something that you think like, this can't be debunked, throw it in there. Throw it in there because that's what I want to do. I want to discuss, I want to hear you out because, you know, there's strange things have happened. And in no way, shape or form am I saying that I think Patrick Clancy has anything to do with this.
But I'm trying to understand why this is becoming a thing, why we're even talking about this, but a lot of people are. So, hence, we are going to as well and address some of the comments that we've been seeing, that you guys have, some of the, just, I mean, look, with anything there's, there's misinformation that gets out and people think it's fact. And then they start applying it to their theories and going, see, well, your theory doesn't work if your facts aren't based on reality. Lindsay Clancy is on trial at Plymouth Superior Court for the deaths of her three children. And her own attorney told the jury that she killed them. She has said it as well. The fight in that court room is over her mind, not her hands. But online, a growing crowd has decided the real killer is actually her husband, Patrick Clancy. He staged it, he framed his wife and walked away to a new life. Robin Dreeke obviously is with us as he always is. Welcome back from a few days off. Richard, FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. People got smarter since you've been gone.
No, they haven't. It's gotten worse.
Where does this instinct come from? Robin, you've been seeing it in the last couple of days online. Why is the Internet, before we dive into some of the specific arms and tentacles of this, why do you think this is something that's gaining traction and people are going after Patrick Clancy?

**Robin Dreeke** (2:41)
I think it's pretty simple, actually.
If you've been watching the trial and a lot of these theories, I think are coming up because of the people watching a trial. She's a compelling figure in the court room. We said it from the very beginning, she's not performative, she's collapsing unto herself with the vast emotion she has of the remorse, the supreme guilt or lack of even will to live because of the heinous act she's admitted to doing, killing her three kids.
Then you see the people standing with her in the court room, basically everyone standing with her except her psychiatrist who's getting railed by Reddington right now.

**Tony Brueski** (3:17)
Being civilly sued as well, who has a vested interest not to-

**Robin Dreeke** (3:21)
That's a whole separate story I know we'll talk about. I've been watching that all morning. Yes. Anyway, what happens in the brain, because I thought a lot about this over the weekend too, what happens in the brain, and with all of us, we want there to be a simple explanation, and when you can no longer, because I think most of these people are now placed in the blame on Patrick or originally placed in the blame on her, and I'm not taking into really account what a psychosis and a psychotic break can actually look like long-term, short-term, and that's what this whole trial is really about, it's the mental health and the psychotic break, and if you can't imagine this woman doing it because of what you're seeing in the courtroom, because of the testimony you're seeing, you have to find the monster somewhere, and so who deviates from the norm of what we visually see in that courtroom? We see Patrick with very little affect, very, very detail-oriented, very much in knowing of what's going on. He's got depth of field of his ex-wife, the medications and everything going on, and so when we as a mass see all these people in her circle, so close like this, and then we see someone who got married three years after, moved to Manhattan, stand by her side.
In other words, our brain wants to find the villain in this, since we're no longer willing to put the villainess on her, we're going to put it on someone rather than an institution or the psychosis itself. So I think that's a reason why this is happening.