And that's exactly what the jury has been asked to decide.

Lindsay's mental health

One of the hardest parts of this case is looking at what happened before January 24.

Lindsay had been struggling with her mental health after giving birth to Callan.

She received psychiatric treatment, was prescribed medication and eventually spent time at McLean Hospital.

Her family described a woman whose mental health had deteriorated significantly.

There were also reports of suicidal thoughts and concerns about her ability to care for her children.

But this is where the evidence becomes complicated.

The defense's experts say Lindsay was experiencing psychosis.

Prosecution experts have disagreed, arguing that she understood reality and was capable of knowing that what she was doing was wrong.

So we're left with two very different interpretations of the same woman and the same period of time.

And ultimately, that's something the jury has to decide.

What happened when Patrick came home?

Patrick Clancy had left the house to get food and medication.

While he was gone, Lindsay killed the children.

She then attempted suicide by jumping from a second-story window.

Patrick returned and found Lindsay outside.

He then discovered his children in the basement and called 911.

That call is one of the most disturbing pieces of evidence in the entire case because we're hearing a father realizing, in real time, what has happened to his children.

Patrick has also testified about Lindsay's mental-health struggles and the events surrounding that day.

Some people online have accused Patrick of being responsible in some way.

I understand why people ask questions when a case this tragic happens.

But there's a difference between asking questions and accusing someone without evidence.

Patrick being Lindsay's husband does not, by itself, make him responsible for what happened.

Then came the internet theories

This is where things get messy.

I've personally come across multiple videos discussing this case, and one claim in particular kept appearing:

That Lindsay made 51 calls to 911.

The problem?

I kept looking for the evidence.

I watched Reel after Reel making the claim.

But the videos weren't showing a police record, court document, transcript or other primary source. They were simply repeating the number.

That's a problem.

I'm not saying:

“The 51 calls definitely never happened.”

I'm saying:

“Where is the evidence that they happened?”

Those are two completely different statements.

As far as the publicly available evidence I have been able to verify, I have not found a credible court or police record establishing that Lindsay made 51 emergency calls.

The 911 call that has been extensively documented in the trial is Patrick's call after he returned home.

So for now, I think the responsible thing to do is call the 51-call story unsubstantiated, rather than presenting it as fact.

What about the Wi-Fi?

Another theory I've seen involves the family's Wi-Fi.

Patrick testified that while trying to contact 911, his phone was switching between Wi-Fi and cellular service, which caused problems connecting the call.

That is a real piece of testimony.

But then the internet took that information and started building theories around it.

There's a massive difference between:

“Patrick's phone had trouble connecting to 911.”

and:

“Someone deliberately shut down the Wi-Fi.”

And there's an even bigger jump to:

“Someone deliberately shut down the Wi-Fi to stop cameras from recording.”

Those are theories.

Unless there's evidence showing that somebody deliberately interfered with the Wi-Fi, we shouldn't present that conclusion as established fact.

But there were cameras, right?

Yes.

Police seized electronic devices from the home, including cameras and a baby monitor.

Naturally, people have questions.

If cameras were there, why aren't we seeing footage of everything that happened?

That's a completely fair question.

But the existence of a camera doesn't automatically mean that it recorded the relevant events.

A device can fail to record. It can lose connectivity. It may not cover the area where something happened. Footage can also be overwritten or otherwise unavailable.

So again, there's a difference between:

“There were cameras.”

and:

“Someone deliberately prevented the cameras from recording.”

The first is established.

The second needs evidence.

And what about Patrick?

This is probably where the discussion becomes most emotional.

Personally, I believe Patrick did not kill his children.

But I also don't think believing that means I have to accept every theory that makes him look completely innocent.

If evidence eventually proves something I didn't know, then I'll change my mind.

That's what I think discussions about cases like this should look like.

I don't know every fact surrounding this case.

Neither does anyone watching a 60-second Reel.

And that's why I don't think we should convict people in our heads based on something that someone posted online.

Evidence vs. inference

This is something that has come up repeatedly while I've been looking into the case.

Someone might say:

“The Wi-Fi had a problem.”

That's a fact if the evidence establishes it.

Then they might say:

“Therefore someone must have deliberately caused the problem.”

That's an inference.

Then:

“Patrick must have done it.”

That's another inference.

And suddenly, three steps later, a social-media video is presenting the final conclusion as though it were proven.

That's how misinformation spreads.

An inference isn't automatically meaningless. Courts absolutely use circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences.

But an inference still needs a factual foundation.

What is happening right now?

This is the part that makes the case especially important to follow carefully.

The trial has now concluded after weeks of testimony and more than 80 witnesses.

Both sides have presented their arguments.

The defense has argued that Lindsay's mental illness made her legally not responsible.

The prosecution has argued that she understood what she was doing and should be held criminally responsible.

And now the decision is in the hands of the jury.

As of September 1, 2026, the jury is still deliberating. There is no verdict yet.

That means none of us should pretend that the legal story has already been completely decided.

So where does that leave us?

For me, this case isn't about choosing between “Team Lindsay” and “Team Patrick.”

Three children are dead.

A family has been destroyed.

A mother is facing the possibility of spending the rest of her life in prison—or being committed to psychiatric care depending on the jury's decision.

And a father has to live with something most people could never imagine experiencing.

There is nothing entertaining about that.

That's why I think we owe the people involved something better than viral speculation.

If someone says Lindsay made 51 calls to 911, show the evidence.

If someone says the Wi-Fi was deliberately disabled, show the evidence.

If someone says Patrick was involved, show the evidence.

And if someone says Lindsay was legally responsible because she knew exactly what she was doing, look at the evidence presented in court.

We don't have to pretend to know everything.

We can say:

“I don't know.”

We can say:

“That hasn't been proven.”

We can say:

“I need to see the evidence.”

And most importantly, we can wait for the facts instead of allowing social media to decide them for us.

Because when we're talking about three children's lives, getting the story right matters more than winning an argument online.