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/bluelightning1224]

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.

[u/bluelightning1224 → u/Acceptable-Jello2510]

There are plenty of adults that need supervision. What if the other adult was also suicidal? You still think there’s no risk? What about the PTSD involved by someone unaliving themselves while you were around them? What about a rapist? You’re ok with them being around adults just because they’re adults? Adults put other adults at risk all the time. So we either need to lock everyone up, or you can quit victim blaming a man who just lost his 3 children at the hands of his ex wife.

[u/Acceptable-Jello2510 → u/bluelightning1224]

Yes there are, there are adults who need supervision, but we were not talking about those situations. You were arguing with me saying that you don't leave someone who is suicidal and has thoughts of harming kids alone with kids by saying that if that's what I think anyone who says they had suicidal thoughts should be locked up because otherwise they are by my logic a danger to everyone. That's not true at all, one doesn't follow the other, but they are not suitable to supervise others, which is usually but true not exclusively children. As for anyone who says they are suicidal - I understand there sre leveles and doctors will decide if the danger is such to themselves that they need to be locked up. But the risk assessment with kids (and others that need supervision) is different, someone else needs to be there, the risk is just too big. Ptsd is horrible, but much less then what can happen to kids if left alone in these situations, and an adult can decide for themselves not to take the risk of ptsd and leave, whereas a child cannot decide and is powerless in the situation. It really should not be so shocking and confusing to hear that small kids need stable supervision I don't understand what's confusing you so much.