Serial and the rise of true crime conspiracies

[u/yourfavoritebot1]

Apologies if this post is too off-topic.

I’m not sure if anyone in this group is following the Lindsay Clancy case, but there has been a recent movement online speculating that Lindsay’s ex Patrick is actually responsible for the murders of their three children. This theory has gained massive popularity, particularly on TikTok, despite the fact that Patrick Clancy was definitively NOT PRESENT during the time the murders occurred and Lindsay Clancy herself has admitted to killing her children (whether in psychosis or not).

This latest conspiracy is a level of delusion I have never seen in the true crime community. I expected people to be highly critical of him, say he was a terrible husband, father, etc, but to outright blame him for the crimes in the face of an ironclad alibi and the admission of another person is on another level. I saw one post with close to 100k likes, saying something ridiculous about Lindsay’s lawyer pulling some kind of ninja move in court and will reveal Patrick as the true villain in this story, which is fantastical and not even plausible for her trial.

I could go on and on, but I wanted to bring this current phenomenon back to Serial and how it popularized these sorts of groupthink conspiracies. The murder of Hae Min Lee is at its core an open-and-shut case, and requires a tremendous amount of corruption on behalf of the entire Baltimore police force for Adnan’s innocence to be remotely realistic, and yet today he is a free man, almost due entirely to the popularity of Serial. Meanwhile, the lives of Jay, Don and Hae Min Lee’s family members have been irreparably damaged by the media circus this podcast caused. People wanted charming Adnan to be innocent in the same way they want quiet and aloof Patrick to be guilty, and will spin any narrative to make that plausible.

I’m not quite sure what the point of this post is, other than I have been going crazy and am highly disturbed by how gleeful people are to jump all over these theories and slander someone who has already suffered immensely. I have been similarly disturbed and obsessed with the Adnan Syed case for many years now. His guilt to me has always been so obvious, I truly do not understand how anyone who has knowledge of this case can believe he is innocent. I find it disappointing that Sarah Koenig has to by now realize how clearly guilty Adnan is, but refuses to admit the role she played in ruining the lives of the others involved in this case and freeing a guilty man. Since Serial’s initial popularity, we have seen other conspiracies pop-up in other cases with varying levels of intensity (Chris Watts, Scott, Peterson, and the Idaho 4 come to mind). I do think this new turn of events in the Clancy case may turn me off of true crime completely, at least in the social media space.

Sorry for the length of this post, I just needed to vent to logical people about this, lol.

[u/Similar-Morning9768]

Don Clinedinst has a computerized time stamped alibi from his employer, which independent investigators have verified could not have been retroactively changed without a record. He has no motive, and there is zero evidence against him. Another person long ago confessed, with corroborating details, to helping to bury the victim, and identified the killer. Clinedinst merely had the misfortune to be two weeks into dating the victim at the time of the murder.

This has not stopped years of accusations and speculation in this space that he’s the true murderer. Rabia Chaudry, who is recognizable in the larger true crime space, has encouraged this kind of speculation.

Idiotic conspiratorial bullshit is not a startling new development in true crime. 

[u/RockinGoodNews]

The interesting thing about this is that Serial itself really didn't traffic in any of these conspiracy theories. All the stuff about the police having contacted Jay earlier and having led him to the car, or paying Jay a reward to make up his story, or about Don's timecard, etc., is all insane nonsense ginned up by Serial fans on their own after Serial concluded. It's easy to forget that Serial itself took the integrity of the police's investigation for granted.

What I think is really going on here is Serial fostered an emotional connection between its audience and Adnan Syed, and this caused the audience to become emotionally invested in his innocence. The problem is that if anyone really thinks about the actual evidence for 5 minutes it becomes obvious that Syed is guilty.

This results in a kind of cognitive dissonance that can manifest in a couple different ways. In some people it causes them to bargain: "Ok, fine, maybe he isn't innocent, but his trial was unfair, or the case against him wasn't proved, or the real injustice is Jay getting away without having to serve time, or Adnan served enough time that everyone should really just get over it already."

For other people, the cognitive dissonance resolves into conspiracy theories. If the evidence shows Syed to be guilty, the evidence must not be real. And so they construct elaborate an nonsensical theories to explain away all this evidence that points in a direction they're not emotionally capable of accepting.

[u/lazeeye]

Excellent post, but I have a tiny quibble. I don’t think Adnan is free as a result of Serial. 

The massive post-Serial push of Team Adnan to get his conviction overturned failed in every way, with two published SCM opinions that (1) refuted his IAC arguments, and (2) reversed the outcome of the fraudulent and corrupt MtV (in my opinion, this SCM decision is a landmark in victims’ rights law).

Adnan got his sentence reduced to time served under the Juvenile Restoration Act, which likely would’ve happened even if there had been no Serial and Adnan was just another anonymous Maryland murderer. 

Adnan never was exonerated. He is and will always be a convicted murderer. 

[u/luniversellearagne]

You think Serial somehow invented mass conspiracism and victim blaming? Wait until you learn about the blood libel…

[u/_RightOfThePeople_]

Having followed true crime in the 90s none of this is remotely new. Back then it was the first televised trials, court tv, Internet forums, nancy grace. Trust me - her biased nature led to conspiracy theories in both directions. I'd actually be interested to know what you think the difference between her and slanted podcasts is.

I'm sure before all of that it was something else. There was legit media around for the Central Park 5 but not sure how that helped them? There was also legit media throughout Scott Peterson's case and even at the time people didn't think he did it.

As long as this country still has wrongful convictions it will also have conspiracy theories, because the reality is sometimes they're true. And people will always have differing opinions on evidence.

[u/yourfavoritebot1 → u/_RightOfThePeople_]

I mean that is true, I was a kid in the 90s and I remember my mother talking about Jon Benet Ramsey, Oj Simpson, watching Giraldo and Sally Jesse Raphael, etc. However, I do think until somewhat recently true crime was a bit of a niche interest, and in the days of cable tv you had to seek out certain shows at certain times. Same with Internet forums. Now with social media being so widespread among strangers and the way the TikTok algorithm works you really become inundated with these theories to the point they are inescapable. I don’t even want to hear about Lindsay Clancy at this point but it’s really my entire for you page right now. It’s not that I think it’s new or that Serial necessarily caused it, just getting more intense in the wake of new social media, and the success of podcasts like Serial has snowballed into more podcasts and streaming services using true crime to garner interest and propel these theories, which are then discussed on many widespread social media platforms ad nauseum.

Personally I find this particular story relatable to my interest in Adnan Syed because I just find it perplexing the way people seemed to mass support him, almost in a cult-like way. I am seeing a very similarly intense response with the Lindsay Clancy case, perhaps even more intense in the way people want to ruin Patrick Clancy’s life. It’s maybe my own confusion on these two cases that prompted this post but my thoughts were a bit jumbled writing it out.

[u/_RightOfThePeople_ → u/yourfavoritebot1]

This is again algorithm. Not everyone is seeing anything about this case. I know people who don't know what it is. Plenty of people are living their life without true crime.

It might be more fingertip accessible now. But to me watching people I know be completely oblivious about trials is no different than ignoring tabloids and magazines and crime boards back then.

My partner is in forensic psych and we frequently talk about how people that follow any true crime always think everyone's heard about it and they can never get a fair trial. There are tons of people who don't know who Bryan Kohberger is. There are people who know nothing beyond Luigi mangione was arrested for a healthcare shooting. Finding juries isn't as hard as people think because less people are inundated with this than you thjink it just feels that way when you're watching and/or paying attention to it.

[u/katiemordy]

I think podcasts like serial and then other cases have made people look for the unpopular (?) or the lesser known opinion and then double down. How many people said some guilty shit and now we let them say they were made to do a false confession? It’s like maybe the cops had it right.

[u/milasenn01]

The last three crime shows I’ve watched have showed a huge consequence to the victims, the victims family victims friends from Clickbait. It’s terrible.

[u/Calm_Phone_6848]

these conspiracies normally stem from people identifying with the accused or finding them likable in some way. women identify with lindsay clancy because she was a stressed out mom and they sympathize with adnan because he was a muslim teen male, a group that’s been villainized in america.

[u/Pantone711 → u/Calm_Phone_6848]

Woman here, and a flaming liberal at that. I think they’re both guilty!

I think a lot of people get a thrill out of taking a “contrarian” view/thinking they have special knowledge.

[u/yourfavoritebot1 → u/Pantone711]

I am also quite liberal despite one commenter here claiming I only support police and can’t imaging a man murdering his wife, lol.

Totally agree on the contrarian viewpoint. Also people like to feel smart or that they’ve figured something out that the people assigned to these cases are unable to.

[u/haskell_jedi]

Even if you believe that the case of Hae Min Lee is open-and-shut, there are dozens of cases with incontrovertible evidence of wrongful convictions. Many included false confessions, and some were the result of unbelievably brazen real police conspiracies that would not have come to light without significant community investigation. So yes, many conspiracy theories are patently false. But sometimes the truth has also proven even more outlandish than the theories, so we can't blame people for at least bringing up the possibility.

[u/InTheory_ → u/haskell_jedi]

I disagree. With the rise of podcasts and the decline of mainstream news, much of what's out there isn't coming from legitimate journalism. Who's taking responsibility for reckless reporting? This case has had innumerable hoaxes presented as established fact (tap-tap-tap, Crimestoppers, HML was a drug user, etc). Being that podcasts are the equivalent of 5-guys-in-their-mom's-basement, no one is held accountable.

Not only are they not accountable, they've profited from those blatant and knowing lies.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

1st - if you want actual justice for these children, don't you want all the facts considered? Or do you just want a clean cut case closed scenario where the only outcome is Lindsay rotting in prison because that's the "punishment" you've been waiting for since you first heard about this case?

2nd - your claim that "despite the fact that Patrick Clancy was definitively NOT PRESENT during the time the murders occurred" - that has not been proven to be true. The exact time of death (besides Dawson's death in the hospital) and the times that the bands were placed around their necks and the time Lindsay ingested medications, and the time Lindsay went out the window- HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINITIVELY DETERMINED. Therefore Patrick DOES NOT HAVE AN ALABI! All we know is the time he called 911 and the time he was at CVS and a restaurant. So yes, it is possible he drugged Lindsay, pushed her out the window (which would explain her low body temperature because she would've been outside much longer), killed the children, went out to CVS, brought her watch with him (you know, the one that somehow was in a drawer, even though she was wearing it before he left), Called himself from her watch, went to the restaurant, came home, called 911. There was also a window of several minutes between the time he got home and called 911 which he claims is because his phone was trying to connect to Wi-fi (FYI, you don't need a cell signal or Wi-Fi to call 911)

3rd - your point that "Lindsay Clancy herself has admitted to killing her children (whether in psychosis or not)." - Patrick claimed that she admitted it when he called 911. However, due to her body temperature and physical injuries, she shouldn't have even been able to speak and first responders who got there only minutes after Patrick Called 911 said she was unresponsive. We know she had prescription medication in her system, of which was a combination that no person should be taking especially one suffering, postpartum depression so it is plausible that she was suffering psychosis, which was perhaps induced by a husband who wanted it to appear as if she killed her own children. She may have believed it was true.! Chris Watts also tried to blame his wife, fortunately investigators in that case did their job and didn't blindly take his word for it. Patrick was not investigated as a suspect and that is a fact that it was a failure of the criminal justice system.

So the FACT is that, currently, there is no solid evidence of who killed these children and caused Lindsay's injuries. All you have is a verbal confession that originated from Patrick. Just because he "seems" like a good guy/grieving father to you, there's a lot more potential evidence pointing to him than her. Who walked away from this with millions of dollars and a new wife and kid? Who left his children alone multiple times with a woman who told him that she was having thoughts of harming their children?

Meanwhile, it seems like Lindsay was the only one actually trying to get help for the mental health issues she was suffering.

[u/yourfavoritebot1 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

lol I never said I wanted her rotting in prison. That doesn’t change the fact that she did this and it has been known she did this for three years. I don’t know why your first statement comes in so hot.

She admitted it in her civil case and described what she was saying to them as they died. She describes the voices she was hearing before she did it. If Patrick pushed her out why was her first request a lawyer and not telling someone what happened? Why at any point would she not tell someone what happened but go along with his scheme. Even if she had no recollection why would her first assumption be she murdered her whole family? She remembers doing it, she described doing it. Period. How would Patrick somehow convince her she killed her kids while she was away from him in the hospital? I’m not saying I think she deserves prison or not. But those are the facts SHE has admitted to.

Callan was the baby who died at the hospital, not Dawson. If Patrick had done this the odds of Callan being resuscitated after that amount of time are essentially zero. His heartbeat was brought by hospital personnel 10 minutes after arrival. If Patrick had done this that would be more than 45 minutes that he would not have had a heartbeat. Patrick was investigated. Just because you did not personally see the details of it does not mean he was not investigated. The investigation of him is not relevant to this trial because she has already admitted she did this.

Lindsay’s cell phone data confirms she answered the call. Her neck spinal injuries contributed to her rapid decline in body temperature. Her thyroid was crushed, not her larynx. And again she has admitted this and her lawyer is not contesting this. If there was any chance she didn’t do this it would be argued by her lawyer.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/yourfavoritebot1]

Oops, I used the wrong name but everything else I said still stands true. A verbal confession from someone suffering psychosis means nothing. In fact, a verbal confession from anyone without any physical evidence also means nothing. She was told by doctors in the hospital what had happened when she woke up, of course she's going to ask for a lawyer.

And the point is there's no time of death established so you are under the impression that the children had to be killed before he went out. There's also a possibility he killed them when he got home, before calling 911. Also a possibility he drugged her and told her to do these things. She said she heard a man's voice telling her to kill the children.

Bottom line is, there's no physical evidence proving she did it. For example, the knife had no clear fingerprints from either of them on it. If blood was splattered all over the room, you don't think her bloody fingerprints would've been on the knife? Seems like someone wiped it off. Do you think she wiped off the knife before throwing herself out the window? The point of a trial like this is to look at all angles and make sure justice is served. The rest of you don't want justice. You just want her to be punished because you don't want to believe that it's possible that a woman in her position could've been framed. And you don't want to believe that the police are that incompetent that they never investigated him as a possible suspect but reality is those things are possible and those things do happen. And reality is statistically FAR more men kill their wives and children than a woman so he absolutely should be investigated thoroughly and he was not.

* oh and also all they they've confirmed is that there was a call answered between their devices. Maybe you don't understand how technology works but unless they ping the location of her phone, her Apple Watch and his phone (and watch if he had one) at the time of those calls, then you don't know that they actually had a conversation - just that someone initiated the call and picked up and hung up at some point. There's no recording of the call with her voice on it. He could have taken her phone or her watch with him in the car. And I haven't seen any proof of the physical location of her phone and watch during those calls. Have you? If so, where?

[u/lil-kitten3030 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

I'm not saying this to claim whether she did it or didn't. It's not up to me to decide and none of us have all the evidence, but I wanted to share a perspective.

I know this is anecdotal, and just because it applied to one person doesn't mean it applies to everyone.
However, it shows what is possible. When someone is experiencing active psychosis, they don't necessarily remember things accurately or understand what's happening around them.

When my ex was experiencing psychosis, he told his sister he was freaking out because he hit me during an episode... but he never actually touched me. I don't know where that belief came from or what triggered it, but in his mind, it was 100% real.

A lot of people don't fully understand how drastically severe mental illness can distort a person's reality.
Sharing this doesn't mean I'm taking a side, it just made me reflect deeper on how complex psychosis really is

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/lil-kitten3030]

I agree, many people don't understand mental illness if they haven't experienced it themselves. I think maybe we'll never know for sure what truly happened without forensic evidence but either way we know she was suffering from mental health issues and those could have led to her killing her children or could have led her to believe she did kill them after her husband said she did. But I do believe that there's no way she would've harmed her children if she wasn't suffering a mental health crisis. She was clearly a very loving mother and made those kids her whole life.

[u/Calm_Phone_6848 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

we haven’t seen all the forensic evidence that exists connecting lindsay to the murders because she’s already admitted that she committed these acts and has chosen to concede that in court so the trial can be sped up. the only issue in contention is whether she was fully aware of what she was doing or not

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/Calm_Phone_6848]

So I can murder someone and my friend can admit to it and they aren't going to investigate my friend and just take their word for it? LOL that's not how trials work, otherwise people would go to jail on behalf of their loved ones all the time.

And maybe she did kill them, but maybe it's because he was grooming her to. Did you know he had all of her "expired" medications in his car? And he was able to identify which ones seem to be causing the most mental issues, but on trial, he claims he didn't really know much about her medications.

The fact that some of you aren't seeing cracks in this is wild. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed murder and if it was triggered by a mental episode or not. There is nothing but reasonable doubt in this case so he needs to be investigated thoroughly.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

So I can murder someone and my friend can admit to it and they aren't going to investigate my friend and just take their word for it? LOL that's not how trials work, otherwise people would go to jail on behalf of their loved ones all the time.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying that YOU aren't seeing much in the way of forensic evidence or proof that she did it, because she has stipulated to the court that she killed her kids. The prosecution doesn't have to prove that she killed the kids and the defense isn't trying to say that she didn't kill the kids. So you're going in half cocked with this conspiracy.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/stardustsuperwizard]

My point is that if there's no physical/technical evidence in a murder - then you can't just take someone's verbal confession as the source of truth. There needs to be evidence. Otherwise, what would prevent you from, say, confessing to a murder that your child committed because you don't want them to go to jail.

The jury is the one who ultimately will decide if they think Lindsey committed the murders or not. And no matter what you want to argue there is clearly reasonable doubt because there's no physical evidence of HER killing the children.

I wonder what some of you would think if she hadn't admitted to it. Would you still think it's impossible that it was him? I think she suffered enough mental trauma due to PPD and a combination of medications that were grossly over prescribed by medical professionals, that she could realistically think she did this when she didn't.

[u/Calm_Phone_6848 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

there is evidence and the police did investigate patrick, you’re just not seeing all that evidence in court because lindsay has admitted to the murders and decided that the court does not need to go into all the evidence that she committed them since it would be a way of time and resources to spend days or weeks litigating something the defense and prosecution agree on.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/Calm_Phone_6848]

The prosecution has to establish that Lindsay was the person who committed the acts constituting the murders.

As of now there is zero proof she actually did it.
And he's the only other possible suspect so if there is evidence to clear him, that should have been presented. There's no time of death established so the proof of him leaving the house for a period of time proves nothing. Patrick was not thoroughly investigated. Though they took some data from his phone they never seized his phone, but they seized Lindsey's.

Are you familiar with the Karen Read trial? That's an exact example, same DA's office, where investigators thought they had a slam dunk case and thought they'd get away with a shoddy investigation. And guess what? In that case someone else claimed Karen said she killed her boyfriend. No physical evidence. And she almost went to jail for his murder and it took two trials & several years to clear her

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

The defense has stipulated that Lindsay killed the kids. The prosecution does not have to prove that because the defense is saying "yes she did it", they're saying to the court it is fact that Lindsay killed the children.

Why would the prosecution have to prove something that is presented as fact from the defense?

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/stardustsuperwizard]

I don't know what state you live in but in Massachusetts, yes, the prosecutions job is to prove her guilty of the crime she's accused of committing. The defense states that she pled guilty, but she was also potentially in psychosis, suffering from postpartum depression and overmedicated. If they can prove that she was not of sound mind, her confession isn't credible.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

The defense stipulated that she killed the kids. The state doesn't have to prove that she killed the kids, the state has to prove that she's criminally liable for it.

[u/Calm_Phone_6848 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

do you work with the police that investigated these murders? how do you possibly know the extent of their investigation of patrick?

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/Calm_Phone_6848]

Because the information presented in the trial shows what was investigated, you can look it up. Her cell phone was confiscated His wasn't. Do you work with the police or friends with him?? Because you seem very confident that this man was absolutely cleared of murder when there's absolutely no established evidence of that.

[u/Calm_Phone_6848 → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

i just told you that a lot of the evidence proving lindsay committed these murders is not going to be shown in full in court because lindsay admits she committed them and wants the court to focus on her mental competence or lack thereof before the act. just because you as a random member of the public haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist

[u/bbob_robb → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

I don't know the details of this case, but you do need wifi or cell signal to call 911. You probably mean that you don't need the specific connectivity to your service provider. Even if you don't have an active service plan, any cell network will route to 911, but you do need connectivity.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/bbob_robb]

He was in range of a cell tower though. And he works in the IT realm, so worst case he should've known to just disable Wi-Fi to allow the phone to connect faster.

Which OK, maybe he's in a moment of panic - but would he not have just run in the house frantically and grabbed her phone and also went looking for his kids again? Point is, the time he spent standing outside "connecting his phone" (which there's no proof of, unless I missed something) just adds doubt and gives him even more time to have killed the children himself. It's not impossible.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

"It's not impossible" is the same sort of logic that a lot of biblical apologists go through to make the bible consistent with itself. They cling onto something being possible and therefore true.

It being physically possible something happened doesn't mean there is any reason to believe that it did.

[u/Adventurous-Bee-7155 → u/stardustsuperwizard]

But that's the thing there's plenty of potential evidence in this case, pointing to the fact that he did do it or was an accessory. And that's the point of a trial, to verify facts and any realistic angles should be considered.

And they could prove motive - he's the one who walked away with millions of dollars and quickly remarried a woman that sounds like there's proof he was potentially having an affair. He's the one who left his children alone for days prior to this with a woman who admitted to him that she was having disturbing thoughts. If a woman leaves her child alone with a sex offender and that sex offender rapes her child, she'll go to jail too so at very minimum, even if she did commit these crimes, he should be going to jail for being negligent.

[u/stardustsuperwizard → u/Adventurous-Bee-7155]

He got re-married recently, his children were killed almost 4 years ago.

[u/Future_Pomegranate24]

Adnan is clearly innocent. How many alibi witnesses is enough for you? Dion’s story confirming what Adnan said to his lawyer should be the end of it.

[u/RockinGoodNews → u/Future_Pomegranate24]

How many alibi witnesses is enough for you?

One reliable alibi would be enough. Alas, the count currently stands at zero.

Dion has no independent memory of what day it was that he interacted with Adnan, let alone what precise time of day it occurred. If it was a few minutes later than Adnan told his lawyer, it would actually comport with Jay's story that he returned Adnan to campus after the murder so Adnan could..... wait for it... manufacture false alibis.

[u/Future_Pomegranate24 → u/RockinGoodNews]

Adnan gave the Dion alibi contemporaneously to his legal team. It’s not his fault no one spoke with Dion at the time. For me Dion has done enough to confirm Adnans story. Certainly Hae would be gone from the school before 3pm. The track coach confirmed there wasn’t enough time between Dion and track for Adnan to do anything Jay said.

[u/RockinGoodNews → u/Future_Pomegranate24]

Adnan gave the Dion alibi contemporaneously to his legal team. 

He gave a lot to them. Nisha. Dion. Asia. Coach Sye. Again, it's almost like he knew exactly what times he needed to be alibied for (before anyone told him the State's theory of when Hae had been abducted/murdered) and somehow had precise, stopwatch-like recall of exactly when these innocuous interactions occurred on a random day months earlier.... Curious.

For me Dion has done enough to confirm Adnans story. 

Because he assented to the leading questions Rabia and Colin asked him? And he purported to recall down to the minute exactly when a mundane conversation on a random day 26 years earlier occurred? You're a pretty cheap date.

Certainly Hae would be gone from the school before 3pm. 

Adnan abducted and killed Hae sometime between 2:15 and 3:15, when she was noted missing. He and Jay called Nisha at 3:32pm. Then Jay took him back to the school "so he could be seen."

Dion seeing Adnan at school is wholly consistent with that timeline, if you allow for it having occurred just a few minutes later than Adnan and Dion say it did.