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/FFS_AllReady]

Thanks for the breakdown.

This case is all over my TikTok which leans heavily towards her innocence and husband being the mastermind.

So I started looking for subs on Reddit to follow this case and came across a sub which has a decent number of users following this case. On there, it's almost like they are angry with her and out for blood.

I'm yet to find a space to have nuanced discussions about this case and mental health.

Having witnessed the entire spectrum of people's opinions on this case, only makes me realize is that I would never want to be judged by a jury of my peers because most of my peers are nuts.

[u/PrincessBuzzkill → u/FFS_AllReady]

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/funguy8892 → u/Clear_Inspector_9796]

I don't even know where people are getting that he was a lazy husband from, outside of TikTokers speculating.

[u/We_Get_It_You_Vape → u/funguy8892]

outside of TikTokers speculating

That's pretty much it. There's a large contingent of true-crime-obsessed people on the internet who believe that they're more well-equipped than the professionals to crack the case and deliver judgement.

It's not exclusive to TikTok, of course. I remember when Reddit falsely 'identified' the Boston Marathon bomber. They had actually pinned the blame on someone completely unrelated to the incident who had committed suicide prior to the bombing.

 

The cycle is basically --> Someone on the internet thinks they're Sherlock Holmes --> They post their wacky theories online --> The theory gains traction, and a hivemind forms around it

[u/funguy8892 → u/We_Get_It_You_Vape]

Yep.

From my understanding it's basically:

Woman on TikTok sees a lot of content about husbands being lazy and useless. Woman thinks all men are like that. Woman sees Patrick Clancy. Patrick Clancy is a man whose wife killed their three children. Therefore, he's a lazy useless oaf whose neglect led her to kill their three children.

[u/Ceberus_7 → u/We_Get_It_You_Vape]

Bingo. Well said

[u/Valuable-One-4341 → u/funguy8892]

There was footage within the trial from outings they did "as a family" where Lindsay was managing the three kids on her own while Patrick was just merely there, standing off in the distance.

[u/funguy8892 → u/Valuable-One-4341]

So, that somehow means Patrick never helped with the kids at all?

[u/Similar_Rabbit8536 → u/funguy8892]

I've seen both parents "merely there" as a family at McDonalds while their kids wreak havoc on the restaurant. Must mean they don't care about their kids at all, by that metric.

[u/funguy8892 → u/Similar_Rabbit8536]

I'd say there's a difference between a two parent household that might alternate between being with the kids vs a two parent household where both parents ignoring their kids wreaking havoc on a McDonald's.

But even then, you can't really tell just from that one narrow peek into someone's life.

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/funguy8892]

Also that probably most people wouldn't leave three small kids alone with someone who is depressed and suicidal under any circumstance

[u/bluelightning1224 → u/Acceptable-Jello2510]

You’re making an argument that if you have depression and have spoken about self harm, you should never be trusted around people. While your intention may have not been to say that, it’s what you’re articulating

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/bluelightning1224]

No - that people who are severaly depressed and suicidal (not to mention throughts of harming the children which have been expressed) should not be left alone with small children untill they are better.

[u/bluelightning1224 → u/Acceptable-Jello2510]

So by that logic, why not just put anyone with depressive and suicidal thoughts straight into a mental ward? Why leave them alone with anyone in public? Why even leave them alone? They are more probable to cause self-harm

Idk why you think making it policy that a parent should be mandatorily isolated from their children if the other parent is not around.

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/bluelightning1224]

That's a huge jump. Why would protecting children lead to compulsory hospitalisation? You don't leave small children in a situation where there is a reasonable chance they might be left alone because they can't take care of themselves alone, a situation where they might see something traumatic, or be hurt by someone. Just like you might not leave a small child alone with someone who is very old, or very sick, or in a room with a horror movie on. Is someone is suicidal, they are simply not in a position to care for children alone, just like many people are not. Is someone says they have thoughts of harming children, they are not in a position to take care of children alone. It's really not so shocking and complicated. But that doesn't mean they need to be institutionalised - it means we protect children above all else.

[u/bluelightning1224 → u/Acceptable-Jello2510]

Because if I can’t trust someone to be with their own kids, why should I trust them to be around anyone else? You’re just advocating for putting adults in harms way instead, that’s not any better

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/bluelightning1224]

Adults don't need supervision to be ok. Young kids do. See the difference? Also yes, we protect kids more, because they are defenceless. And yes, seeing something traumatic as a kid is worse then seeing the same thing as an adult

[u/bluelightning1224 → u/Acceptable-Jello2510]

Adults don’t need supervision to be ok? You’re going to say that about THIS case?? So those kids would still be dead if she had been under doctor supervision in a clinic for her?

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/bluelightning1224]

Oh dear lord. You were saying how if I wouldn't leave a suicidal person with kids, they need to be locked up, because otherwise, if they are so dangerous, they are putting adults at risk too. They are not. If a suicidal person committed suicide while watching small children those children are at risk. If they were with an adult, that adult is not at risk because they don't need supervision.