Just Jelli

The one thing I’ve learned from being chronically online the past couple of weeks is that I don’t want a jury of my peers deciding the fate of ANY case against me, or that I bring against someone else.

A buzz phrase? Yes. 

An accurate one? Also yes. 

The amount and level of collective delusion settling like corpse farts over the Lindsay Clancy trial is about as sickening as my analogy. And I don’t understand. 

I understand the speculation about Patrick Clancy. I understand the lack of ability to understand the concept of admissible evidence, trial strategy, essential elements of a charge or defense, and burden of proof. 

What I don’t understand is the serial repetition of outright lies. Lies that are easier (to disprove) than these imbeciles’ mothers. Admittedly, my first mistake was having expectations. My second mistake was reading comment sections, because…what?

Let’s briefly touch on the most common I’ve seen:

1. Patrick re-married 4 months after the deaths of his children

Wrong. He re-married three years after the deaths of his children. That’s public record. You can search the county’s official public records for marriage licenses. 

2. Lindsay’s DNA was not on the exercise bands.

Wrong. It was. Viable fingerprints were not found. Also…like…she used the bands for exercises other than strangulation? Why wouldn’t her DNA be on them?

3. Patrick’s friend – not Patrick – went to CVS

Wrong. There is literally CCTV footage, satellite data, and phone records showing Patrick was at the CVS. 

4. Patrick changed shoes between CVS and the restaurant

Wrong. The two CCTV cameras had varying quality resolution, and there are prior photographs of Patrick wearing those same shoes, showing the exact same structural (if not color, because…you know, resolution) components of those he appeared in at CVS in

5. Lindsay’s body temperature could not have reached 82 degrees in less than an hour

Wrong. Clancy’s medical experts have testified as to how this is possible. Prior to the defense’s case in chief, published and peer-reviewed medical journals explain how it is possible. Lindsay was not a dead plane crash victim submerged in water (IYKYK)

6. Lindsay was unable to speak when Patrick saw her

Wrong. She can literally be heard speaking on the 911 call. She told Patrick she tried to kill herself, and that the kids were in the basement.

7. The first thing Lindsay did upon waking was asked for a lawyer.

Wrong. The first thing she said was “horrified” in response to a question about how she was feeling. Chronology is unclear – Commonwealth actually posits the next thing Lindsay asked was whether her body was broken and whether her legs were straight, and THEN she asked WHETHER she had a lawyer – not if she could speak to one. 

The overarching theory is that Patrick killed the children and framed Lindsay. More fantastical musings include:

1. Because Lindsay is a Leo and lions don’t kill their cubs, she couldn’t have committed the act

First of all, lions absolutely kill their own cubs. Second, what?

2. Because Patrick is a Gemini, he definitely killed the kids

What?

3. Patrick sexually assaulted his daughter and killed she, her siblings, and tried to kill her mother to keep it quiet. 

Right…because calling 911 after failing to kill your wife without knowing what she does or doesn’t remember is WAY less of a risk than a potential rape charge.

4. Patrick cheated on Lindsay

First of all, so what if he did. Second, given the Commonwealth’s proclivity for inflammatory arguments, don’t you think they would have jumped on that as a motive? Especially considering they are woefully lacking in that particular department?

5. Patrick looks like Brian Kohberger so killed the kids.

What?

6. Kevin Reddington is going to pull an Elle Woods and sandbag the Commonwealth, jury and judge during closings with an entirely new defense and legal theory

So, that would result in a mistrial, sanctions, disciplinary action and possible disbarment. I know we lawyers are sexy as hell – especially Reddington – but it just doesn’t work that way. Lawyers spend YEARS preparing cases for trial. Trial is simply the presentation of years’ worth of work. It’s like a live-action, really long, really expensive PowerPoint. Litigation isn’t a fucking poker game, you chuds. 

I shit you not.

There were no shits in the relaying of these rumors. Real people, presumably with the right to vote, drive and procreate, typed this out, probably did not proof read, and posted on a public global platform. I used to wonder how we got Trump as a president twice. I don’t anymore. 

At first, I wasn’t going to waste digital paper space discussing the very real danger of group delusions; but my opening sentiment forecloses that choice. I must discuss; precisely because, while these chuds will NEVER be the referee in a trial, nor on either side submitting competent, evidence-based arguments (though, from the looks of the Commonwealth, maybe I’m fucking wrong), they may be a jury member at some point, and therefore charged with the responsibility of deciding someone’s fate. 

Now. There is, of course, a caveat. A safeguard, if you will. If a judge believes the jury is completely out of its mind, they have the ability to, essentially, set aside the verdict. However, it is VERY rare that happens, because the side who stood to gain from a crazy jury can call for a mistrial.

My only hope for the future of the judicial system are lawyers’ collective ability to conduct a proper voire dire. That, and that the collective idiots remove themselves from society; or, better yet: stop being idiots. 

A good friend of mine posted a series of videos debunking most of the above-referenced conspiracy theories, and instead of inspiring civil discourse on the importance of proper research; on women’s health; or even on the respective sides’ arguments and strategies, she was personally attacked. Chuds were challenging her legal degree and experience; calling her incompetent; and calling her a liar. Some snowflake criticized her use of the word “fuck,” asking if it was taught in law school. That particular aged meat sack literally took what little time she had left in said meat sack to attack a professional adult’s competence based upon said professional adult’s use of adult language. 

I want to not-so-gently remind folks that lawyers have personalities and lives outside of court; and since TikTok and Instagram are most assuredly outside of court,  not only is it okay; but it is entirely expected that attorneys don’t act like they are presenting a case to a jury, where there is no case and no jury. 

For fuck’s sake. 

That past-her-expiration-date, pickled-brained, lead-poisoned, paper-skinned…person…was literally scrolling on Instagram; watched my friend’s video on something very important with very real-life implications, and decided to chastise a complete stranger about her use of curse words, likely taking many minutes attempting to type with her fat, rotting fingers. 

That’s how you chose to spend what little time left you have on this planet before your fat wrinkly meat suit evicts you?

Anyway, the point is that people are actually retarded. 

This is something that took me a really really long time to internalize. I consistently thought I was too stupid for everyone else not to be smarter than me. Like, the majority of people in this country can’t possibly be dumber than me?

Well. 

They can.

And they are. 

Trust: this includes people purporting to be “professionals.” I’ve seen lawyers (whether they are actually licensed and still practicing has yet to be seen) push this bullshit. And this bullshit is not subjective. It is not opinions on Clancy’s culpability or trial strategy. It is OBJECTIVE. It is a question of fact. Like, do we have lungs? Do we breath air? Like that. 

There are nurses on social media making Factual claims about Clancy’s body temperature and what that means about her alleged guilt/innocence/intent. From the two I saw early on in this conspiracy theory cesspool, the argument is Lindsay’s body temperature could not have dropped so drastically so quickly, implying she was on the ground for longer than 30-45 minutes, in turn implying that Patrick engaged in foul play. Some folks haven’t even taken this that far. They stop at “there are so many inconsistencies,” and use the perceived ambiguity to get them to the conclusion Patrick did this. Neither are reasonable, rational, logical, or based in reality. It is unclear – to me, at least – how lying on the ground longer than 45 minutes somehow gets you to a murder conviction of someone who’s not on trial. That, my friends, is what we call a “leap.” 

And the above assumes Lindsay was, in fact, on the ground for longer than the 45 minutes. Record evidence establishes she was not. Record evidence establishes her injuries, coupled with environmental circumstances resulted in the sharp drop. Lindsay’s expert witness attested to this at trial. 

There is at least one *dry heave* lawyer on social media espousing – if not directly, heavily implying – these theories. She, thankfully, is not practicing. She apparently left her job as a REAL ESTATE LAWYER (who can be transactional attorneys or litigators, by the way, so there is no telling whether this fucking quack even has trial experience) to pursue her dream of becoming A PSYCHIC. 

Some other commenter, in defense of her very shakable beliefs about this case, argued to an actual practicing TRIAL lawyer that other lawyers believe Patrick did it. I can tell you with near certainty: no they didn’t. None that are (1) practicing, and (2) of sound mind. No lawyer in their right mind believes there is even a chance Patrick was involved; or that Lindsay did not commit the acts. 

Why?

Because Lindsay’s defense team doesn’t believe that. It really is that simple. 

It is also worth noting, these same commenters idolize – almost to a concerning degree – Kevin Reddington. I mean…me too, a little. He’s done a masterful job (not sure if I think it’s masterful only in comparison to the utter dumpster fire that has been the Commonwealth). But to idolize someone because you believe they are doing such a good job and simultaneously suggesting he somehow doesn’t have all the evidence, or somehow does not comprehend all the evidence is wild to me. 

Well.

Maybe not wild, considering there are some folks who believe Patrick did it because he’s a Gemini, and Lindsay is a Leo and lions “don’t kill their cubs.”

I truly don’t know how to describe how I feel about this. Is it collective, mass psychosis? Is it a product of chronic internet use? Is it simply that people are THAT. FUCKING. STUPID?

Any of those answers would be concerning. 

What is clear is people actually believe this shit because of how dogged they are in defending it. Only people who’s core identity is threatened behave that way.

Based on the commentary I’m seeing – not only on my friends’ content – but on other professionals’ pages (INCLUDING MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND PROSECUTORS, by the way), people who have made this case their entire personality do not like their newly-acquired belief system challenged. You see the same thing with political parties (both left and right, and everything in between), and with certain (not all, but most) religious affiliations. 

While I’m no sociologist, I have researched folks’ behavior and what might cause such behavior, and it seems like people are hardwired to fit in. To tribe.  We are rewarded when we conform (happy brain chemicals) and are punished when we don’t (sad brain chemicals). Has to do with how we measure our own self-worth, and appears to be connected with how self-confident we are, among other things. 

So – a lot hinges on folks’ conformance or non-conformance, including one’s own self-worth. That’s a high-value treat, self-worth. And when that self-worth is challenged by way of beliefs, the lizard brain kicks in (right, because your brain can’t fucking tell whether you are under physical or emotional threat) and people start to fight like cornered rats (or lizards, I suppose). 

Does this absolve stupidity? No!

Your stupid is your problem, and you’re making your stupid everyone else’s problem, too. Now, could this be avoided by simply removing oneself from social media? Mostly, yes. 

Is that a reasonable resolution?

Lol, no.

But expecting people to just stop being stupid is also unreasonable. So here we are. 

There’s not really a big, substantive, meaningful crux of this post apart from mere venting. And research. For God’s sake. I won’t (I probably will, LBH, but not here) comment on whether I think Clancy had the requisite intent or on the Commonwealth’s strategy. I’m a civil litigator – not criminal (read: I’m ABSOLUTELY going to comment on both). 

What I will do here is reiterate what I’ve only seen some attorneys actually specifically cover: RESEARCH YOUR SHIT. 

Most attorneys commenting on this case are simply debunking the rumors. They are effectively giving the masses fish without teaching them how to catch them. Not their responsibility, and I’m not dinging them for it, because who the fuck am I? Not the lawyer police. 

But because I’m so awesome, I’ll share my tips and tricks on how to effectively research:

1. Well-established news outlets. 

NPR, AP News, NY Times, Wallstreet Journal, BBC. These organizations and companies have been around for decades – some for over 100 years. They did not get to where they are by publishing rags. Many have correspondences within the court room, taking meticulous notes. Some have their own legal experts weighing in. These are great sources for facts. We have even cited news articles in motions. 

2. Any website ending in “.org”, “.edu”, or “.gov”

These are mostly safe (though with the current administration, I would recommend caution with the “.gov” sites, depending on the site and information sought). Most assuredly, edu is going to be safe. 

3. Online Case Data Bases

Lexis and Westlaw are the biggest, but you have to pay. There are free online case databases. Why is this relevant? It’s not, really, unless you’re looking to compare like cases with the Clancy trial, or distinguish others.

4. Official Public Records

This is a big one. Court dockets, property records, marriage documents, death certificates, mortgages…all are available to the public for free online in most jurisdictions. They are typically located on the county clerk’s website. Property records in particular are usually on the county’s property appraiser’s site. You can also access charging documents, mug shots, political affiliation, and limited vehicle information.

What NOT to rely on:

1. Random people on the internet, mostly. 

Especially those who can’t seem to cite sources. 

2. Rags

TMZ, Daily Beast, New York Post, etc. You know the ones. Way too colorful, and you risk malware when visiting their sites – if you can even read the article through all the pop-up ads.

3. Anyone with any incentive to say what they’re saying

Most social media platforms now flag when someone is trying to sell you something. Though, for many creators, the incentive is followers and engagement – which unfortunately, cannot be flagged for advertisement. People love being mad about shit. They love drama. And others have learned to capitalize on this by creating “rage bait,” or content meant entirely to make you mad. Most creators who post this content do not espouse the things they say. 

4. People who simply copy and paste

You’ve seen them. Especially when your algorithm is algorithming you on ONE video you watched for 3 seconds too long. There’s the first video, and then comes the wave of other videos saying the exact. Same. Thing. Sometimes, it’s literally verbatim – vocal inflections and all. That is actually wild to me and I would love someone to study that behavior. It is so incredibly weird. But here’s the thing: people eat that shit up!

Okay. I’ve rambled for too long. There you go. Don’t contribute to societal stupidity. Be part of the cool club. We want more cool people. Don’t be uncool.