Desireé Dallagiacomo
Region: US
Friday 14 August 2026 22:27:48 GMT
50642
1624
1096
113
Music
Download
Comments
pringerbitz :
From a sane person: the details being brought up create reasonable doubts.
2026-08-14 23:35:48
377
Kim_Chi0408 :
It’s about Patrick story cause Patrick was the only person telling it🙄🙄
2026-08-15 03:06:20
101
ButterfliesnSunshine :
You’re wrong. He’s not on trial, however his “story” is absolutely a huge factor in this trial. If not, he wouldn’t have been called as a witness. Reddington is in process of providing reasonable doubt and I think he will be successful with his defense arguments. He’s just been dropping breadcrumbs but the whole loaf coming.
2026-08-15 02:50:55
134
katieandruby222 :
But please make a video with the evidence that convinced you that it was Lindsey?
2026-08-15 01:11:39
55
Ashley | Books📚 & T1D 💙 :
You can say all of this but the fact of the matter is that Patrick Clancy was never investigated as a suspect. If he had been fully investigated and cleared, I could see your point but that isn’t how it happened. Were his “business” trips to New York verified with his employer? Did they ask him about extramarital affairs? The police completely botched this case and perhaps that is why Lindsay needs the best of the best. Also…I don’t know if you have small children, but I can tell you that there is no way that a mom of 3 babies has time to sit down at a laptop to browse things such as the location of the carotid artery. Moms do all of the searching of everything on their phones. To be clear, this is not a conspiracy - conspiracy insinuates denial of something known to be true. The Commonwealth has the burden to prove that she committed the crimes and, if she did, that she did it with malicious intent…beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not saying he did it but I am saying that I am in no way convinced that she did.
2026-08-15 02:39:46
44
Rio Slade :
I'm very evidence driven. My problem with Patrick's testimony is that some of it seems incompatible with medical knowledge. For example, the allegations of the first confession. Everyone lies. Being a liar doesn't mean you've committed murder. But using that lie to accuse someone else is suspicious. Another creator on hear said that truth doesn't cause confusion. Patrick creates a lot of confusion.
2026-08-15 00:13:21
48
kenz🩶 :
The biggest problem for me lies with the investigation done by police, because they took Patrick’s word, and therefore were only looking at specific things, and not looking at EVERYTHING, essentially it seems they had tunnel vision from the start, and did not complete a thorough investigation to find out “who did this?” It was immediately “how do we prove that SHE did this because that’s what the husband told us.” Again, not saying he did it, just saying that the police failed to investigate all of the evidence properly, and they didn’t do that because of Patrick’s story.
2026-08-15 05:58:10
29
Seven :
Great take!
2026-08-19 19:25:11
0
Margie💃 :
Evidence points to him. #HeDidIt
2026-08-15 00:37:10
31
frgbkiytr :
They hired Reddington before anybody even spoke to her. Her family knew she had these mental health issues so it’s likely they just believed Patrick when he said what happened… Normally, I am very against the true crime conspiracy theorists, but the timeline presented by the prosecution appears to leave room for it to have been possible that Patrick did it and framed her. I get what you’re saying, but I think people are deeply uncomfortable with the fact that the investigators appeared to have only done a cursory check of his alibi and then took his word as gospel, especially in a world where men are far far more likely to commit these acts of violence
2026-08-14 23:10:56
45
Bakerstreetjedi :
The crux is this is Patrick’s story. He has provided the majority of the “facts” in the case, the timeline, and sequence of events. Many are not easily corroborated, if at all, particularly due to the cameras being down. For me this is concerning enough, but then there are inconsistencies and contradictions it creates doubt. It is acceptable for people to questions things that are inconsistent. Medical professionals, forensic experts, and lawyers don’t even agree on what the evidence so far says. I personally think everything we have in this case is either hearsay, circumstantial, or not substantial enough on its own, and these cases are always difficult. It’s easy to get swept up in it, but we have to remember we don’t have all the evidence that the jury has/will have. Unless there is undeniable proof coming, this jury will have a difficult decision ahead.
2026-08-15 01:09:06
25
Amanda Givens :
And isn’t PC on her side? Like defending her ? Isn’t he a defense witness??
2026-08-15 02:06:37
38
bleuphoric :
Then why would Reddington point to his email being later than Patrick said…. That doesn’t help show her mental state… shows the timeline isn’t right
2026-08-15 02:10:07
17
user8574330351687 :
The biggest thing I want to understand, from a medical standpoint, is how could her body temp drop to 82 degrees in 30 minutes??? Like is there a logical explanation for that?
2026-08-17 20:13:30
8
J.Moore18 :
I’m on the fence. I get your point, but you’re kind of oversimplifying. Reasonable doubt exists when you question whether the police investigated much at all. The methods used and the profile, plus the fact it was family-related mean the father/husband is supposed to be THOROUGHLY ruled OUT - full stop. They didn’t do that. This trial was politically charged and it’s obviously emotionally charged. They didn’t do due diligence and they rushed to crucify this woman. If she did this, they failed the children by not creating an air tight case. If she walks and he isn’t charged - they have blood on their hands now. They did a bad job
2026-08-15 16:15:37
41
Ju :
Girlie wake up. His story would not have this many inconsistencies if he isn’t hiding something
2026-08-16 01:43:43
9
Follow the evidence :
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. The entire investigation, and even the trial, is based on the timeline Patrick provided and on events and circumstances described by Patrick — and no one else. So you can’t seriously say this case isn’t about him.
2026-08-16 18:23:08
10
erica 🐋o :
expecting a father to fully remember every detail of the worst, most traumatic day of his life where he lost all of his children at once is insane.
2026-08-19 06:57:19
8
Gracie :
I appreciate you being nice about this discussion. I don’t usually engage because people are incredibly hostile about this. My issue is as a doctor I just can’t see how it’s possible she did this. Patrick was gone less than an hour and based on her injuries and temp at the hospital she had to be down for at least an hour, probably longer but I think an hour is possible. She just didn’t have time to do all this. And then when you think of them getting a rhythm back on an infant that was down for an hour? If he had a heartbeat at the house it would be one thing but from what I understand he did not. A LOT of the people that have an issue with the case not making sense are in the medical field. We are not all just crazy conspiracy theories. I started watching the case with the assumption that she did it like everyone else. It doesn’t make sense. If they present evidence that does make sense I will change my mind again.
2026-08-15 15:58:45
38
Angie :
1. We walked in expecting to hear everything about the door (Lindsay’s case), and instead, the prosecutor told us the story about the window (Patrick’s inconsistencies and lies). 🤷🏻♀️2. A random day that no one would remember, i absolutely agree—but the day supposedly when his wife k—-ed his three children? I would hope/expect that he remembers every freaking details. 3. Of course Lindsay’s parent would hire Kevin Reddington. Let’s say the parents and Lindsay know patrick did it, but the police already botched the job, the ex-husband already cremated the kids, the world hates you, and you don’t think you can win the case because you literally don’t remember what happened that day. What do you do? You find the best lawyer to give you the best possible outcome. And it has been talked about MANY times before that, in a case like this, where not all the evidence was collected in the first place, it’s easier to defend rather than accuse. Lindsay would then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Patrick did it (hard). It’s much easier to prove that she didn’t do it (or at least enough doubts). I do agree that Reddington is not there to prove that Patrick did it. That is not his job. He is there to prove, at the best-case scenario, that Lindsay did not do it, or, as the second-best outcome, that she did it but was not criminally responsible. The prosecutor, Patrick himself, and all the other witnesses are the ones making us realize, “Holy shit, it is more likely that Patrick did it than Lindsay.”
2026-08-15 15:01:37
14
Alycat :
Patrick has never called Lindsay a monster. Why is everyone so quick to call him one?
2026-08-15 15:22:24
13
marathonbroski :
I fear most people are ill equipped to possess this level of nuance
2026-08-15 07:11:04
5
Amber Hynes :
The prosecution has the burden of proof to prove she did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt AND that she planned it and was of sound mind. So far, I don’t think they have done that. There is a lot of reasonable doubt
2026-08-15 12:46:53
16
Han :
It’s been over 3 years since the event, but that doesn’t mean they have had evidence the whole time. The phone/laptop inspectors didn’t search through it until 2025!!!
2026-08-14 23:35:21
11
To see more videos from user @des.dallagiacomo, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
