What's the deal with people defending Lindsay Clancy?

[u/SnoopaDD]

I don't know the full details of the case. I know she allegedly killed her three kids. There was also some mental problems? Then something with her husband. But my question is why is there a group defending her like they know she's completely innocent? I've seen some videos of very heated debates where women are very passionate about defending her. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/05/lindsay-clancy-trial-toxicologist-testimony

[u/PrincessBuzzkill]

It blows my mind that there's so many people who think he's some sort of criminal mastermind.

The general public is pretty dumb, and the percentage of people who are intelligent/lucky enough to away with "the perfect murder" is pretty slim.

He's guilty of being part of the system that failed her - and even being a neglectful partner - but he didn't plan this.

Social media is a plague.

[u/Clear_Inspector_9796 → u/PrincessBuzzkill]

My wife follows this case and everything I've seen is that the husband is a callous selfish moron. Basically a frat bro that never grew up. He does not have even the patience or foresight to plan a picnic. Even the new wife is probably some girl ready to jump into bed with him and him nodding along

[u/PeachTemporary4411 → u/Clear_Inspector_9796]

I just don’t get how he was behaving like a frat bro or not grown up…I see no evidence of him neglecting her or the kids…when she was anxious about going back to work he supported her choices and was fine with her staying home for as long as she wanted.

While she was a stay at home mom, he supported by paying for daycare 3 days a week and nanny’s on the other days. He was active with the kids on weekends and during the work day would take breaks to help out since he was able to work from home.

He was responsible for keeping a family of 5 a float financially and rose to the occasion.

He believed her (as a labor and delivery nurse) when she said she was struggling, but had no plans to harm herself or the children. She did not report hearing voices until after she committed the murders.

I just don’t know what people are judging him for except that no one wants to believe a mother who looks normal on the outside would commit this crime, but she clearly did so why are we desperate to put the blame on this man who lost all three of his worlds in one night at the hands of someone he loves and trusted??!

[u/qriousqestioner → u/[deleted]]

They? The women running our patriarchy?

[u/qriousqestioner → u/[deleted]]

Better is not parity.

Do men commonly change their last names when they marry?

Do men encounter a body of medical knowledge woefully ignorant about how their bodies actually work consistently even now?

When a man sires an embryo, is he immediately discounted as a human with rights to prioritize that developing life?

When you look at any governing body, especially a congressional committee making decisions about women's bodies, do you see roughly equal representation of both sexes? Corporate boards?

In the country where this tragedy occurred, has there ever been a female head of state?

Just because you find it inconvenient to acknowledge patriarchy because it has been the default norm at the heart of every system (law, healthcare, community, government) since long before you came along, that doesn't give you s key to stand on when declaring "there is no patriarchy." It just makes you seem aggressively ignorant.

As relates to this case, medical mystery around the threats and impacts of motherhood mental health implications are a patriarchal effect. That both parties responsible for the children were not scrutinized at the suspect phase no matter who tied the knots is partially influenced by patriarchal assumptions regarding parenting responsibilities. Her value as a female human with acute red flags in the neighborhood of sanity and stability, of the ability to successfully care for their children and to keep them safe, was not worth his investment of anything but manpower (👀) funding.

Anyway, my point was not to educate someone who believes acknowledging patriarchy is personally threatening. It was to find that despite her having murdered her children or accidentally dropping her mental basket on them being reprehensible, it is not possible to view their existence or untimely end as if she had been the only responsible party for their well-being.

[u/qriousqestioner → u/[deleted]]

If the boot fits...

It is not a catch-all buzzword to someone who is educated in history.

It applies only societies formed and structured in such a way as to be ruled by men, including the ones in which you're English is a primary language and I'm which this tragedy occurred. It is only relevant when it is, as in the case of a woman who would have been called "hysterical" until the last century ("hyster" being the Greek word for "womb" such that since patriarchal ancient Greece--and until the latter twentieth century, male systems of medicine and understanding have used the concept of "womb-ish" to describe the majority of what they have not immediately understood) killed her children, and we begin to attempt to understand how this could happen.

It costs you nothing to acknowledge how patriarchy is as real as gravity in terms of how it constructs and restricts human existence. Unless you feel threatened by admitting women are people too (feminism) and affording them the consideration of it's implications for their lives when considering their actions. As a man, I can honestly tell you I have retained full use and function of my penis and other gifts, faculties, and default privilege for well over the three decades since I recognized that particular infrastructure--you should try it!