The rest of your post simply repeats the claims you've made elsewhere -- that Patrick's at fault for failing to do the impossible and make a fundamentally unsound business model work.
It's bizarre that you are claiming that the fact he attempted to do the impossible somehow absolves him of some responsibility, or that the responsibility is shared.
It's his fault for trying to do the impossible, after all - he devised the whole ill-fated scheme!
The people who gave him money weren't doing so as part of a joint venture with him. That was not the deal. The deal was "Give me money and I will give you a fixed interest, and you can withdraw your principal at any time." and not "Invest with me and we will share risk and profit equally."
He broke the deal. It may have been unavoidable, but that doesn't matter. He was running a business. His depositors were his customers. He made an assurance to them and he broke it. The deal was never structured as a joint venture, it was never described as a joint venture, and it shouldn't be regarded now as a joint venture.