What TikTok Creators Are Accusing Lindsay Clancy's Husband Of

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
And now we're going to have a conversation about Patrick, about Patrick Clancy, because so many folks have discovered or thought that he's a really interesting person to drag down into the depths of hell and stomp on a few thousand times. While Lindsay Clancy's trial plays out in Plymouth Superior Court, a parallel trial is happening on TikTok. Creators are accusing Patrick Clancy of murdering his own children and pushing Lindsay out of the window.
Based on nothing. The defense admitted in an open court that Lindsay did all of this. She's admitted it. The question is what, if anything, the man who lost three children can do about the people calling him a killer on the internet. This one's for you, Patrick. So we have Eric Faddis here with us, former prosecutor, defense attorney, and Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program. We've seen it, TikTok creators, YouTubers posting videos accusing Patrick Clancy of killing his own children. They're calling him the next Chris Watts. They're claiming Lindsay didn't jump. He pushed her. His wife's own defense team already told the jury she did it.
Is that defamation or is it something else, Eric? What sort of paths does Patrick Clancy have to the creators? And I put that in air quotes for those of you listening on the podcast, who seem to think that this is a great road to go down and and inflame a bunch of people's lack of other things to do around.

**Eric Faddis** (1:48)
Yeah, you know, certainly if someone is making a factual statement about Patrick Clancy, that he murdered his children, and that statement is false. That could be grounds for Patrick Clancy to bring a defamation case against that person. One potential issue that comes up, though, is in order to prevail, Patrick Clancy would have to prove that that statement is false, that he did not do this. Now, proving a negative can be a lot harder than you think. That's one reason why our judicial system is set up the way it is. The defense does not have to prove that they didn't do it, because proving you didn't do something is a lot harder. We're talking about the absence of evidence. We're talking about circumstantial stuff and inferences and things like that.
And so for Patrick Clancy to prevail on it, to prove, hey, I for sure didn't do this, that might be difficult.

**Robin Drake** (2:41)
Is that difficult, though, given that she said, I did do it?

**Eric Faddis** (2:45)
I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, isn't that difficult?

**Tony Brueski** (2:49)
There's the time stamps, there's everything that shows he was not the one who did it.

**Robin Drake** (2:52)
Besides that, she said, I did it. So is that proof?

**Eric Faddis** (2:57)
You know, I think is it absolute proof that someone else says they did something of which you're being accused? It's not absolute proof.
Now, certainly, I think that he just want to be easier to prove that he didn't do it than other cases. But, you know, I think the commentator would say, hey, this is how I feel about it. And I think this guy looked shady on the stand. I think he's been, you know, holding back or however they want to characterize it. And that's the basis for my opinion. And I just think it gets a little messy trying to prove a negative.

**Tony Brueski** (3:32)
I guess what the problem that we have here today is the fact that so many people have access to a microphone and a camera and people who want to go down whatever dark road they want to visit, whether it's factually based or not. With that being said, a lot of people don't have an understanding of law, of defamation, of libel, of slander. They just think that if they go out there and say, well, that's my opinion, that that completely covers them. Does that really cover somebody, Eric? I mean, help people understand the ground rules a little bit more about what you can and can't get away with legally. I mean, I think some people are hedging their bets. It's like, is Patrick Clancy going to spend the time and the effort and the money suing Susie and Paducah, who has 30 bucks to her name for saying some crazy shit online and inflaming tens of thousands of people? Is that worth it? Does it go anywhere other than a huge slap on Susie's wrist? There's that of, would he actually go after Susie? But let's say Susie has a couple million dollar home and is doing this and has assets and is inflaming a bunch of people. That may be someone that is worth going after to shut the fuck up.