"Patrick said"

Let's count how many times a witness said "Patrick said" I got you because this is a really good question. How many times during this trial did somebody basically say "Patrick said" and I didn't just search the little words Patrick said. I counted Patrick told me, Patrick indicated, Patrick reported, according to Patrick, learned from Patrick, Patrick described, anything where the testimony expressly identifies Patrick as a source of the information. And I excluded Patrick's own testimony. Ready? I counted at least 31 occurrences. 31 things information gets attributed back to Patrick through somebody else's testimony. But wait, because this is where it gets way more interesting. Those aren't 31 independent facts. When I collapsed the repeated statements, I found roughly 12 plus consequential underlying claims that originate with Patrick. Meaning one claim can essentially travel Patrick says it and an investigator documents it, an evaluator reads it, an expert relies on it, and then the jury hears it. That's multiple appearances in the record. But it's still one original source. Patrick. And I want to know where this gets really interesting. Day 20 and 21 alone account for at least 10 of the Patrick source references I counted. And that is why I'm not nearly as interested in the number 31 as I am in what happens underneath it. Because when an expert says Lindsay's version and Patrick's version are divergent and uses those differences while evaluating Lindsay, I need to know which version is independently established by evidence. And how much of it ultimately traces back to Patrick Clancy. 31 things. And I... Patrick source, Lindsay's source, independent eyewitnesses, physical evidence, digital evidence, corroborated, not corroborated, contradicted because after counting at least 31 Patrick source references across this trial, I have a much bigger question now. How much of the narrative presented to this jury can actually be independently proven and how much of it ultimately traces back to Patrick Clancy? Patrick source, Lindsay's source, independent eyewitnesses, physical evidence, digital evidence, corroborated, not corroborated, contradicted. So you don't suddenly have three sources. You still have one. Patrick told an investigator something, and that investigator puts it in a report, and then an expert reads that report and repeats it in court. You don't suddenly have three sources. You still have one. Patrick source, Lindsay's source, independent eyewitnesses, physical evidence, digital evidence, corroborated, not corroborated, contradicted. Because after counting at least 31 Patrick source references across this trial, I have a much bigger question now. How much of the narrative presented to this jury can actually be independently proven and how much of it ultimately traces back to Patrick Clancy?