Patrick Clancy’s 60 Minutes Interview & What Was Left Unsaid

Rotten Mango

The episode provides a deep-dive analysis of Patrick Clancy's recent interview with CBS 60 Minutes following the tragic death of his three c

Key takeaways

• The host highlights significant investigative flaws, noting that police failed to collect pill bottles and an Apple Watch found near a window during searches.
• Netizens have drawn comparisons between Patrick Clancy's mannerisms and Elizabeth Holmes, specifically regarding head movements during the interview.

Main topics

• 60 Minutes Interview Breakdown
• Lindsay Clancy Investigation Flaws

Notable quotes

Please do your absolute best not to get sued for defamation.

Conclusion

The episode serves as a critical examination of how high-profile trage

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:02) I Speaker 1 (0:02) cannot stress this enough. Please do your absolute best not to get sued for defamation. It is like, I can't say much. Not that I've been sued for defamation, but even just any cease and anything with lawyers. It's a lot of money that I think people are not realizing. Like when you were throwing on a TikTok. Just think real quick before you post it because it will consume your entire life and it could wipe you dry of a lot of money. Earlier this month, Patrick Clancy's attorney released a statement. And in short, it states, over the past months, Patrick Clancy and his family have been subjected to a relentless, escalating, and destructive defamation campaign. This campaign of misinformation has been launched and promoted by minor celebrities, so-called influencers, and outright conspiracy theorists who appear intent on boosting their own social media profiles and potential profit by publishing what they know to be outright falsehoods that Patrick was somehow involved in the death of his young children and other vile claims. Patrick's attorney states that this has resulted in real life threats to his reputation, livelihood, and life, which this is kind of like the foundational basis of a defamation lawsuit is here's what happened, here's the lie, here's the impact. Speaker 2 (1:33) I Speaker 1 (1:33) guess you could say this is like a blanket season desist for the general public and a lot of TikToks that I've been seeing, but it's not really, but you get what I'm saying. And I will say that Patrick has... multiple attorneys i think one thing that people have also been holding on to is that patrick clancy did retain a criminal defense attorney people thought that was very strange now i will give some context it is pretty typical when you are a witness and you testify on the stand you're not that is the type of attorney that you do get i see So this is not some sort of like, ooh, something strange is happening. That's weird. This is a very typical thing. Even Reddington was representing, well, Jen McCabe, but that's a different story, right? So it's just, it's a thing. But one thing that I can say is we've seen this with cases before where people start pointing fingers at other individuals who are not the ones that are formally charged. And we've seen this before in cases, and I've said it before too, is that when people start pointing fingers at other individuals who are not the ones that are formally charged. Typically, it's accompanied by some sort of conversation about the investigation itself, leaving a lot to be desired. I can't help but wonder and feel that a lot of that blame should be on the investigators. If the investigation had been so thorough, and just to give you an idea of how un-thorough it's been, they left a whole drawer full of pill bottles and the Apple Watch. The Apple Watch that Lindsay had obsessively been wearing was left in the... nightstand next to the very open window where lindsey clancy went out of and on top of this very nightstand was the bloody knife that was apparently used for all of the marks on lindsey you know the cuts on lindsey's wrist and neck that drawer had a bunch of pill bottles that now the commonwealth is saying she crushed up these pills and then drank them in her lemonade You know, she was trying to drug herself and self-exit. All of those pillow bottles and the Apple Watch was inside the drawer that the police did not take in their search warrant. So I'm just saying. So how do Speaker 2 (3:46) we find out that it was not taken or it was even there? Speaker 1 (3:49) So Reddington goes to the house after he's hired and he's with Patrick Clancy and he's looking around the house. He opens the drawer and he's like, what the fuck? Well, he didn't say that, but basically his demeanor and the way that he presents this information in court is like, what the fuck? Speaker 2 (4:02) Yeah, that's wild because these are the drugs that she. Took, right? Yes. Speaker 1 (4:06) They also find a ton of pill bottles. Well, they don't find. Patrick Clancy comes in a little bit later to the police station with pill bottles that he was keeping in his truck that are Lindsay's pill bottles. So there's a lot of like weird, just strange. Some electronic devices are taken in during the search warrant. Others are not. Why not? They're in the house. If you're taking one, why not all? Speaker 1 (4:30) Had the investigation been done in a way that most people can agree is very thorough and detailed, I think it would be incredibly difficult, I think, for a social media conspiracy to grow pointing the finger at someone else that is not formally charged. Because the investigation is so thorough, you could say, well, there's literally no way because look, this is definitive proof in the evidence that they could not have been involved. But this is a less than spectacular investigation, in my opinion. And you can still wholeheartedly believe that Lindsay Clancy is the only person involved in her children's death. And regardless of whether you think it is. psychosis or just outright premeditated vile disgusting murder regardless of how you feel about it I would like to say that a less than spectacular investigation harms every single person in this country not just those involved in this case And I know this is where people are going to say, well, Lindsay said she did it. Her attorney said she did it conversation, right? That's going to come into play later. We're going to cover that. But even with that, I firmly believe it would serve absolutely nobody in this world to act like this was a great investigation. Act like this was the investigation we would want if God forbid something happened to our loved ones. I mean, maybe others would be content, but I would just not be. But I think this. investigation has made it easier for netizens to start wondering and pointing the finger at other parties such as Patrick Clancy. Speaker 2 (5:54) Side note, there were also some claims online that Speaker 1 (5:57) Patrick likely married Rachel so close to the trial date, so they get married earlier this year. To create some sort of spousal privilege and prevent Rachel from testifying. I will say again, Rachel was never on any sort of witness list for the Commonwealth or the defense. And there is no evidence that the marriage was related to Lindsay's criminal case. Also, marriage does not create a blanket rule that spouses cannot testify against each other. And it's not really applicable in this particular case either, because it would have to be that Patrick or Rachel is the defendant and the Commonwealth is trying to force the spouse to testify against their partner, not two witnesses in a trial, right? So there's no credible evidence that has surfaced, again, that Rachel would possess any sort of firsthand knowledge or evidence that would be relevant to this criminal case even to begin with. But something interesting does happen in court later where it spins off a whole theory. It's the anniversary date. So if you guys just know we're getting there. After Lindsay Clancy's first trial was declared a mistrial, it was announced that Patrick will be doing his very first interview post mistrial. This is a huge deal for such a big, high profile case. All we really have from Patrick is his testimony in court, his original GoFundMe statement, some small statements made to media outlets here and there that were more focused on his children's legacy, which I think is good. But, you know, and there is this longer New Yorker narrative profile that was done in 2020. but other than that, he's rarely done interviews. He's rarely made any statements. But now after all the online allegations, conspiracies, rumors, accusations, he's going to sit down with CBS 60 Minutes, do an interview. And it seems like a lot of people collectively found out that 60 Minutes is not in fact 60 Minutes long. I mean, it is, but it also covers three news stories typically, meaning there's only about 20-ish minutes airing per each news story that they cover. And they... did release an extended cut later for Patrick Clancy and Rachel Danis' interview, but after this initial announcement, CBS News starts releasing teaser clips of the episode that's to come. One shows the interviewer, Ross, more on Ross later, sitting with Patrick Clancy on a park bench, and Patrick tells him, I talked to them. What do you say? Help me all the time. I think CBS knew exactly what they were doing with that clip because some of the top comments on that teaser alone, and this is the CBS TikTok account, comments read, help me, I'm in Costa Rica. Help me, I'm skiing. Help me, I'm a millionaire. Millionaire referencing to the GoFundMe raised nearly $2 million. And he is also suing the providers for damages in excess of a million dollars. Another one reads, notice it's not, I miss you. I wish I could see you grow up. Others say he creeps me out and I don't know why. Some say shaking his head no while stating a yes is a big indicator of lying. Some have compared it actually to the A24 teaser of Elizabeth Holmes documentary. Yeah, that's going to come out. Remember Holmes of Theranos? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So she's like talking to Nathan and she's nodding, shaking her head. I guess people are saying they have very similar mannerisms. And we know how Elizabeth Holmes turned out. I guess 54,000 people believe they have the same energy, mannerisms, and general vibe because that's how many likes that comment got. Another comment reads, never talks about them, always just me, mine, and myself. because I guess they didn't like his help me comment. Now usually with comment sections for this case, depending on which TikToker you're watching, it'll skew one way or the other pretty dramatically, but you'll still see a very good mix of just all out war in the comment section. This is posted by CBS News and it feels like you do have to scroll a bit to get to a comment defending Patrick, which is pretty rare in this case. You just scroll through pictures of Elizabeth Holmes and Chris Watts to get to some comments defending Patrick. Or at least that's from the time that I was scrolling. Then it's released that Rachel will actually be joining Patrick for the interview. And the whole thing got memed to oblivion and back, mainly because Patrick is wearing what appears to be the same exact grid pattern dress shirt that he wore with his suit when he testified in the Lindsay Clancy trial. And Rachel is wearing a black dress with a white collar outline that she wore during an interview for work that was posted by her workplace that has since been taken down. But people actually think it looks like the Gone Girl couple. When the FMC comes back from being kidnapped and her staged kidnapping and they're doing interviews about how happy and in love they are that she's back. Speaker 2 (10:40) What? Speaker 1 (10:41) Then one of the more insane teasers they release is of Rachel sitting there saying, they don't give the context of the question. It's just Rachel saying, I don't know how the story's been so twisted, but I hope people know that Pat is, as I've said before, the most selfless father. and supportive partner. And I was just a girl that met a guy running in Central Park on a really cold Saturday. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Which has taken on some criticism and has been more or less memed with some quoting a famous Julia Roberts quote from the rom-com Nodding Hill, where she says, I'm also just a girl standing in front of a boy asking him to love her. Others are pointing out the words Rachel used. How the story has been so twisted. This isn't a love story that's been twisted. This is a story of how three young children were killed. One comment reads, so it's not a romance story? It's a murder trial, Rachel. Others are saying, really cold Saturday? Like you mean before the children died? One comment reads, I'm just a girl who met a guy that had a wife that looked exactly like me. Some of the top comments on that teaser dropped by CBS News read, okay, Rachel, but which Saturday? Others read, I'm too intelligent for this. Others say, how does she know he's a selfless father if she never saw him fathering? Others say, time of irritation, 921 a.m. Selfless? He prioritized himself over everyone. Others point out that while Rachel is giving her what has been deemed kind of a strange, I'm just a girl monologue. Patrick isn't looking at Rachel, some netizens are pointing out, but he's rather looking at the interviewer, Ross, which some people think is very odd. People typically gravitate and look towards the person who is speaking, especially when they are your partner or your spouse, because when you are in unfamiliar settings with, let's say, five people and someone is speaking or there is a silent moment, people typically gravitate towards I. contact with the person they are closest to. So the fact that he is looking at Ross, people think it's to gauge Ross's reaction and see if he buys the story. Speaker 2 (12:53) And Speaker 1 (12:54) again, I think body language, mannerisms are really hard to decipher. Others have been bringing up other related quotes with one comment reading, he was a father to some really great people and they had a lot of friends. So if you read that comment and you're a little bit lost on the context, I'm going to fill you in because this is kind of a, I don't know how to describe, like there's some contextual things that people get confused by in this case that are not really relevant in the grand scheme of things. But they're almost like part of the meme culture of the case, which is also atrocious to even put those things together in a sentence. But that seems to be what's happening. So after Patrick ran the Boston Marathon in his children's honor, this was a while back, he did a quick interview at the finish line where he was asked about his children because he ran it in his children's honor. And he basically just said they were great people. They had a lot of friends. They lived a short life. but it was a very good life. And a lot of people found that strange and peculiar considering that Cora was only five. That's the oldest of their children. And to say they were good people, good people sounds like something that you would say about a distant colleague that you don't really know. Something happens to your colleague and you're like, that was, she was a good person. A lot of friends, good life, short, cut short, but great life, great person. People think that saying a child has a lot of friends as some sort of personality attribute, especially to your own children that are now deceased, doesn't feel honoring. Some people said it felt like he doesn't know his kids. Others felt like, give him a break. He just ran a fucking marathon for his children. He just ran like 26 fucking miles. He's probably winded, exhausted, needs some sugar in his system. Like, what's the big deal? Others are saying, well, to fight that argument, he ran it in his children's honor. So like maybe he could have thought of what to say before he ran the marathon then. Others just say based off of that, that interview, short little snippet of the Boston Marathon, it's a really bad decision for them to go on 60 Minutes. I can't say for certain whether or not it was a bad decision on Patrick and Rachel's part, but the comments are intense and there has been questions online of why the hell did they choose 60 Minutes and why that specific interviewer, Ross. Side note, CBS News has, as a whole, has been under a lot of fire recently because CBS News was actually considered one of the more reputable news networks a while, while, while, while back. while back and the center of this whole controversy is a woman named Barry Weiss. I'm sure if you keep up with anything in politics you fucking know Barry Weiss. Barry Weiss is a self-declared Zionist fanatic. That is what she has declared. Also she states that she's a left-leaning centrist but most people would argue that she's pretty damn conservative and ever since her takeover is how people call it of CBS News. She's very close with the Ellisons, Larry Ellison, David Ellison. After her takeover of CBS News, they're kind of part of that alt-right pipeline now. She's the one that did the very notable, memorable Erica Kirk town hall where Erica Kirk did the very notable, memorable, viral stop, right? Directed at conservative political commentator Candace Owens. That was a whole thing. That's Barry Weiss. So there were some initial questions of like, why 60 Minutes? And I know when you hear 60 Minutes, we do associate it with some pretty reputable journal, like journalistic integrity. Because they did a lot of major interviews with massive politicians, like just huge people. And they usually handle it with a lot of care and attention. So people understood 60 Minutes, but they don't understand it now with the way CBS is right now. But they also wonder, why the fuck Ross? That's not me saying that. A lot of people, there's just a lot of conversations. Ross is relatively new to CBS. He was named a correspondent in July of this year. But I will say he is a very, like his credentials, his background, top tier. Like he was with the Times before. So was Barry Weiss. They were both at the New York Times. But anyway, so a few months under his belt and he's taken on one of the bigger, I don't want to say biggest, but bigger interviews for the network in recent months. Speaker 2 (17:18) Yeah, what's up with that? Speaker 1 (17:19) Yeah, no one knows the decision on why. But also, this is where it gets weird. So he previously worked at the New York Times and the Atlantic. He has been described as being a conservative columnist. He has written extensively against abortion. Speaker 2 (17:34) He Speaker 1 (17:34) has written about the decline of religion in American society. To oversimplify it, Ross thinks everyone should be religious. Is that a very accurate statement? I don't fucking know. It's the title of his book, though. Religion. Why everyone should be religious. I did not, however, read the entirety of the book to verify that is his end thought. That's Speaker 2 (17:56) so interesting. Yeah, why him? Okay, wow, I see. Interesting. Speaker 1 (18:03) He is, I believe, Catholic, right? I just assumed... Speaker 2 (18:07) Because I did see a clip saying this was his first time doing the 60 Minutes. This was his first interview, right? Speaker 1 (18:13) And I agree with a lot of netizens' sentiment of, and this is across the board, wherever you stand with this case, I think they should have chosen, I honestly think that they should have chosen a female interviewer, and I think they should have chosen someone who covers extensively perinatal... postpartum health or women's health in general because that is exactly what Patrick said his message is about. That's what his children's legacy is about. So that would be more on par with what Patrick is trying to do and what would actually be ultimately probably beneficial for everyone. Someone who is very well versed in that I think would have created a much better atmosphere where we get more answers to questions. Yeah. Speaker 2 (18:54) Yeah. And Speaker 1 (18:55) someone that could provide maybe even context. But I'm going to break down the entire 60 Minutes interview with online speculations and comments for the big key moments from this interview while providing any context, if necessary, cross-referencing with The New Yorker, cross-referencing with Patrick's testimony. And this is not the extent of the cross-referencing I'll do because a lot of it I did want to save for when we cover Patrick's testimony because once I bring something in, then I have to bring in 10 other things that happened. So this is just me trying to give you the fullest picture of this 60 Minutes interview and everyone's reaction to it. I obviously cannot tell you what Patrick and Rachel's intentions were of doing this interview, but one could easily imagine that it's because they want to shut down all the Patrick did it conspiracies circulating online. And I say Patrick did it in quotes, right? To clarify the details of their relationship, to address some of these defamatory statements. If that's their goal, does the interview accomplish that? I think that's a very interesting thing to think back periodically and interesting to see which points they emphasize and highlight in this 28 minutes. I'm sure the interview lasted longer, but it's just, and I'm not saying that in some sort of conspiratorial way, but I would imagine that Patrick and Rachel came on to 60 Minutes. for a purpose, for a goal, Speaker 2 (20:13) to get a message Speaker 1 (20:14) across, deliver information. I don't think they're here to have a chit chat because they love netizens and internet users. I think they probably hate every single person on the internet right now. The interview, however, starts with just Patrick and Ross. Ross asks about what kind of mother Lindsay was and Patrick says that she was very hands-on and quote, I think she reached that point that she sort of dreamed of. Speaker 2 (20:38) What does that mean? Speaker 1 (20:39) I wanted to include this portion because I think I was trying to like at some point I'm like, at what point am I doing too much? I don't know. I was rewatching this interview multiple times and I was trying to analyze and get some sort of baseline. And again, I don't like body language and I don't like overanalyzing someone's word choices because I think that can get very dangerous. I will say across the board, Patrick is very vague in every statement he ever makes. I've yet to see specific information come out of him. So that's what Speaker 2 (21:09) that's my biggest thing with him is it never ever nothing ever felt that deep and personal. It's very hard. And I think that's probably what a lot of people are feeling is like when you look at someone, you just don't feel like they're being genuine. Not saying he's not. It's just like his word choice is never felt like it's. You know, so now I was surprised about his Yelp comments because that felt more personal. That felt like... Speaker 1 (21:36) Alleged. Right, Speaker 2 (21:37) alleged. That felt more like a person who's expressing their emotion. Like, oh my God, that sucks. I hate that. But it felt like a real comment versus a lot of these just... You never really know, you know? What Speaker 1 (21:50) he's... Yeah. And I think that's like a big question that people have is, is this... the body language and word choice