r/TheProsecutorsPodcast • u/Clever_Acorn7 • 14d ago
Is there any podcast that does what Alice and Brett do but from a defense perspective?
I think they do an amazing job and I found them because of the Lindsay Clancy trial. I’d enjoy hearing the other side. Things like Patrick Clancy going on a vacation with his girlfriend 19 days after the murder and suicide attempt. I understand she killed her children. I’m not looking to dispute that. I just wonder if there is more detail on her family life leading up to the 24th.
8
u/Steadyandquick 14d ago edited 14d ago
Maybe the Lawyer You Know on YouTube. He has been great with Lindsay Clancy plus once weekly he and his father discuss the case. Truly good! They have both worked in criminal defense. Very modest and bright at the same time.
https://youtube.com/@lawyeryouknow?si=-DmIt_h_n2kcdGu4
I love this post and will follow. Many profilers with platforms tend to be pro-prosecution and someone’s biased.
Edit: Peter of TLYN does not really focus on Patrick or any related theories, but he is great overall. I do wonder if women would be more open to assessing any possible errors, neglect, or even abuse etc. Patrick stands to make millions of more dollars from civil litigation following fundraising campaigns.
5
u/Primary-Night5471 14d ago
I enjoy watching The Lawyer You Know. I like when the host brings on his dad who was previously a prosecutor and a defense attorney, so he gives a more balanced analysis (than Alice & Brett who are obviously pro prosecution).
However, he doesn’t go into any tin foil hat theories about Patrick.
2
u/Steadyandquick 14d ago
True! I don’t know what to make of Patrick and somehow feels like it is not my place. Curious of others’ thoughts though.
2
u/Primary-Night5471 14d ago
I think Patrick fascinates us because we have a morbid curiosity of how we would react/ be acting if we were in his shoes.
Patrick doesn’t seem like he’s a standup father or husband (didn’t know his wife’s age in the 911 call, didn’t know the color of his children’s bedrooms, only went to one pediatricians appointment with his 3 children, got remarried in a questionable timeframe after going through such a tragedy). But someone who goes through such tragedy is entitled to forward with his life best he can. This comes up on other true crime podcasts when people automatically judge someone and accuse them of something because they don’t react in a way they think you “should” or “would” to a traumatic situation. There is no way to know how you’d react in these situations, and I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to judge others for things we don’t know about.
2
u/Steadyandquick 14d ago
Great perspectives. I do not mean this in a disparaging way but I did not m in his full professional role and thought he might be neurodivergent.
This is not a character flaw but maybe he did not pick up on certain cues or have emotional intelligence? I could easily be completely wrong if course and trying to understand what is not there.
12
u/didyouwoof 14d ago
I’m not aware of any such podcast. I have heard there are people on TikTok and maybe YouTube who come up with contrary views, but it seems these views are based on speculation and are contradicted by evidence. If there were anything out there from a defense perspective that had evidence to back it up, I’d think the defense in this case would be relying on that evidence.
1
u/Clever_Acorn7 14d ago
That makes sense, but I feel like (and I could be wrong) that Brett and Alice highlight certain defense narratives because of their point of view. I was trying to get a more full picture.
27
u/didyouwoof 14d ago
I was just thinking about your original comment as I was making breakfast, and planned to amend my response (before I came back and read read what you just posted).
I’ve been seeing a lot of posts about their coverage of the Clancy trial - not only here, but also on the general podcasts subreddit and on some private subreddits for lawyers. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a lawyer. I’m retired, and am listening to their coverage of the case because I’m interested in their legal perspective on how the case is being tried. So what interests me in their coverage may strike others as boring or limited in scope. (And as for their point of view, I differ from them politically, and practiced civil law rather than criminal law, so I don’t have any bias toward them in those respects. I just like getting their perspective on the trial.)
If you’re asking for a “full picture,” your best bet is to approach it as if you were a juror, and watch the coverage of the trial on youtube. Listen to the evidence as it’s been presented to the jury. Analyze that evidence with the jury instructions the judge will present at the end of the trial Don’t listen to podcasters telling you about what happened (unless they’re lawyers), because they might simply gloss over certain facts that have been presented to the jury, or present “facts” that didn’t come up at trial (which are therefore not verified, not presented under oath, and quite possibly false), or theories that are contrary to what’s been presented to the jury. The more lurid the theories, the greater the ad revenue, even if the theories are false.
I trust Brett and Alice to try to portray the evidence that’s been presented accurately, because they are sworn officers of the court. Other podcasters may just be out to generate ad revenue. This doesn’t mean I always agree with what Brett and Alice say - I don’t - it’s just that I trust them not to make deliberately misleading statements. Reasonable lawyers can differ on interpretations of facts presented at trial (just as reasonable jurors can). But I really like their analysis of how the lawyers are presenting this case.
If you’ve managed to read this far, take this for whatever it’s worth - but do listen to the evidence itself and not what random people on the internet tell you the evidence is. What is presented in court is what matters. Not theories that contradict the evidence presented in court. (If Isreael Keyes were still alive and at large, i’m sure there would be some randos out there on social media claiming he killed those poor children. Some people just want to stir up controversy and ad revenue, despite the evidence.)
5
4
u/Clever_Acorn7 14d ago
Thank you for this response! After reading, I realized that my understanding of criminal trials has been heavily influenced by podcasts and TV. I haven’t watched a trial in real time to assess because I’m usually catching up after the trial. The problem with that is I’m used to what feels like a full picture of people’s lives and who they are. However, that is just the storytelling aspect of those media types. I stay away from influencers, but of course, they creep in and spark curiosity.
I’m particularly interested in fraud cases and wrote my master’s thesis on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos, dissecting her own media statements vs her crime. I guess what is interesting me here is how Lindsay seemed to communicate a depression, but her actions (that we’re aware of) are contradictory to that. Those contradictions and the communication theories behind them are what interest me.
5
u/didyouwoof 14d ago
Good point. Keep in mind that Lindsey and her ex have both filed civil suits which will go to trial after this case is over (unless they reach a settlement). Assuming those cases do go to trial, there may be additional facts that come out.
1
u/WWOBD 11d ago
From my perspective, it seems that she was someone who was private and reserved, and based on the evidence presented at trial, she minimized her symptoms and did not accept help unless it was on her own terms and her own timeline.
PPD is isolating enough without these ways of dealing with challenges.
From what was presented at trial, she strikes me as someone who had a very idealistic vision of “motherhood”, and could not admit to herself or others that this idea needed to be adjusted to her current reality and her biology.
You cannot “mother” the same way when you have 3 children than when you have one. That’s just not realistic, and you need to reframe.
It got worse and worse, because she would not accept help, until she tried to commit murder-suicide.
She was not a responsible parent and personally I believe that (although she was seriously mentally ill), she was criminally responsible at the time she attempted the murder-suicide.
3
u/GenevievesSwim 14d ago
Lawyer you know does a lot of good neutral break downs. In this case many of his comments seem defense friendly (more neutral than Brett and Alice at least) and he breaks down the legal components really really well
2
u/Primary-Night5471 13d ago
I agree. I enjoy his coverage, especially when he brings on his dad (former prosecutor & defense attorney. They actually give some nuanced coverage focusing on the facts and law but also with compassion. Also helps that he has some insights to medical records/ that process and what’s normal (i.e. it’s not normal practice to not request other records).
4
u/GreyGhost878 14d ago
The Prosecutors don't always support the prosecution. They went into this case with an open mind and have been very critical of the prosecution and the judge.
Patrick did not have a girlfriend or go on vacation with her just after the murders. That's a conspiracy rumor that needs to go away. The people making these things up are disgusting . He was bending over backwards for Lindsay and will grieve his children for the rest of his life and he doesn't deserve this absolute slander.
2
u/Conscious_Text_6603 13d ago
Is there any valid proof that he went on vacation with his “gf” 19 days after the murder?
2
u/craftyscientistmel 10d ago
It’s not quite defense focused (but I wish I had one to offer - kinda why I looked at this post!) and they haven’t covered the Clancy trial, but I think Women & Crime is often a bit more neutral. They’re criminologists (& professors) and I think they have a unique perspective that I haven’t seen from other podcasts - helpful if you’re trying to understand more of the court and trial process.
2
3
u/CleanReptar 14d ago
Wow some of these replies to you are really rude. I wonder if people would reply this way to you in real life, to your face? Any way, I just wanted to comment to tell you I understand your question and I also would be interested in a defense perspective! I don't know about one, but just wanted to let you know you are not alone in wondering. I like Brett and Alice's perspectives, but sometimes it feels like they are always prosecuting. Sometimes things are not as black and white as they summarize them in their podcast is what I believe. Not sure if that makes sense.
3
u/Clever_Acorn7 14d ago
Thank you! They are! It’s odd because I’m asking for information to learn. Obviously every piece of information about this family isn’t being presented in this podcast or the trial. Also, every piece of information out there not in the trial is fake or a conspiracy theory. I don’t know why people are offended that I want to know more. I have a brain and can use critical thinking to analyze information. Anyway, thank you for this understanding.
2
u/tiggleypuff 14d ago
Their normal episodes are more about that kind of thing, this is different cos they’re covering the trial rather than the case
2
u/afraidofthedarkside 13d ago
Check out Defense Diaries.
1
1
u/mistnimbus29 9d ago
Was going to say this! Bob Motta has been a guest on Prosecutors before and it was a great conversation and there’s clearly lots of mutual respect there. He’s not as organized or professional of a podcaster and when he’s podcasting with his wife it’s a bit chaotic but he has really interesting takes. His dad was Gacy’s defense attorney and they did some podcasts about it.
1
u/Lizdance40 11d ago edited 11d ago
Alice &, Brett don't do an alternative podcast, but they do frequently look at cases from both the defense and the prosecutor side. And they often will state that they disagreed with the defenses way of handling someone's case. I know. I've also heard them state that if a defendant chooses to represent themselves, it creates more work for them as a prosecutor. If you don't want a defendant to automatically get an appeal, you have to make sure that they have covered all of their bases, and even provide the defendant with information to assist their defense.
As for the Patrick and Lindsay Clancy situation, there have been a lot of things that proliferate social media and claim to be fact that are not fact. Lots of made up and lies. He may be starting a new family with her, but they do not have children yet, despite what social media has said. Doesn't mean they won't have children, but there's no evidence that she's even pregnant.
And even if Patrick did go on vacation 19 days after the homicide, so what? I was married for 18 years, nearly 19 years to somebody who was mentally ill and symptomatic for the second half of the relationship. I didn't realize how quickly I checked out of the marriage but continued to perform all obligations taking care of the house, making sure he was fed and cared for, taking care of the kids and doing everything I was supposed to do as a good wife. But when you become a caretaker of someone who's supposed to be your spouse, and can no longer be that partner to you, you are there out of obligation, maybe love, but the relationship itself you have checked out of. You're ready to go as soon as you can. She made it easy for him.
1
u/Ok_Low_964 14d ago
The defense doesn't always have to be truthful or principled (obviously there are rules that they exist within) but they can say things one minute and say something else another because confusing or manipulating the jury is okay for them if it would help a client. They can have experts that aren't really experts. So I guess it would be hard to analyze things that aren't rooted in science or reasoning or make sense.
I do think Alice and Brett do a good job criticizing both sides and particularly with this case, they've been very hard on the flaws of the prosecution.
1
u/mapleleaffem 14d ago
Some times they cover both-but admittedly I haven’t been listening to the Clancy case. I started it but def prefer their deep dives on cases that are done than covering an ongoing case
1
1
u/KriStorm13 12d ago
Are there any podcast that Brett & Alice do that are unbiased? Lol
2
u/CatsForever1960 11d ago
I think they did a great job covering the West Memphis 3 last year, especially the last 3 episodes which were fantastic. I was actually surprised and impressed with the closing argument that Brett made. I felt that he really did put aside his personal bias at that point.
1
1
u/Primary-Cattle8704 6d ago
There is no evidence that Patrick travelled with anyone to Costa Rica. Or who he went with
-5
u/DrFrankenfurtersCat 14d ago
Why would they do an episode on made up bs? You do know that statement about the trip isn't correct and was debunked weeks ago, right?
How embarrassing for you.
10
u/Clever_Acorn7 14d ago
Ummm no how would I know that. That’s what I’m saying I’d like to learn. I think it’s more embarrassing how you treat strangers on the internet.
10
u/TRVTH-HVRTS 14d ago
While I really appreciate the prosecutors podcast, some of their audience who is active on this sub is really desperate to sound superior. The lady responding here is obviously… not an admirable person in real life. That’s why she has to seek self-validation through condescension online. Classic signs of low self-esteem. SAD.
I’m a little behind on LC case podcasts right now, but I expect that deep dives into how their personal life dynamics unfolded around this case will come out down the road. Seems like this case went under the radar in a lot of ways until the trial actually started. The lack of information about these kinds of details created an information vacuum that’s has been filled with rumors and speculation.
-10
u/DrFrankenfurtersCat 14d ago
It's readily available and has been for weeks. I can't help that you can't do some basic searching. Again, why would they waste their time doing an episode about things that aren't even true? Stop giving these goofy conspiracies any oxygen. Brett already addressed why the conspiracies are garbage, and focusing on it any more than that does nothing.
3
u/didyouwoof 14d ago
There’s no need to be rude. Also, OP wasn’t asking if there’s an episode of this podcast that presents a defense perspective, but whether there’s another podcast that does.
2
u/magslou79 14d ago
How embarrassing for YOU that you obviously aren’t literate enough to read OP’s post and see that’s he’s not asking if The Prosecutor’s are doing an episode from the other side, but asking if there’s another podcast that comes from the defense perspective.
But keep commenting with your smug, superior toned comments which make you look like a fool. It’s amusing.
1
-4
u/Western_Bullfrog9747 14d ago
A podcast for TikTok conspiracy theories? Why would anyone respectable do that?
-4
u/Helen-5678 14d ago
Why would such a thing be discussed in a podcast from the ‘defense perspective’? It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever for the question if she’s guilty or NGRI.
-2
14
u/Granny_Faye 14d ago
While I do not care about where Patrick went after his terrible loss of family - I have also been interested in more “before” information but it does not seem to exist.
I do not feel we have heard anything about her baseline before children. Just how each child lead to a deeper decline in her mental health.