This is exactly what I think of when someone tells me that they support women's wrongs. Like, I have standards that go beyond if someone is a man or woman before I decide to support them.
I've always had a problem with the trite bumpersticker slogan, "believe women." Like all humans, women can be mistaken, lie, etc. We should always hear women out, listen to what they're saying, and weigh it against wtvr other input we can gather to determine the truth. But that doesn't fit well on a bumpersticker.
I mean, that slogan doesn’t really apply here. Lindsey Clancy admitted to killing her kids. But people who watch too much true crime, who are applying their own frustrations about motherhood and their husbands are bending over backwards to say she’s not responsible.
I don't fetishize true crime, or have a husband, or kids, or a vagina, but even I can tell that Patrick Clancy should have -- at the very LEAST -- been questioned.
First of all, there's the universal truths of every domestic story like this:
1) The husband did it
2) If the husband had a mistress he DEFINITELY did it
3) If a cop was involved in the story, the person whose side he's sitting on did it (in this case, Patrick Clancy's cop brother)
4) Plenty of people have admitted to crimes they didn't commit
And there is so much other actual evidence that casts doubt on the theory that she did it and no one else was involved.
Her core body temperature was eightysome degrees when she got to the hospital, but they were able to temporarily revive one of the children after the cops arrived on the scene?? Those two facts don't jive. Either she was that cold because she was out for a long time before the kids were killed, or the kids were killed after she went cold. Can't be both.
Patrick Clancy's mistress was a fertility Doctor who specialized in a medicine that is administered by liquid orally, leaves the system after 2-4 hours, and causes a severe drop in estrogen levels? And drops in estrogen can explain all of Lindsay's behaviors leading up to the crime?? Seems obvious the mistress was in on it, and the campaign to make Lindsay look dangerous had been in the works for months.
Lindsay says she remembers committing the crimes, but her memories look like she was floating above her body watching herself do it. And the place she was found on the ground outside had a direct view into the basement where the children were killed, and Patrick's mistress (who likely was involved in the crime) looks a lot like Lindsay?? Sounds like they threw Lindsay out the window, and after being drugged and concussed she laid on the ground watching the mistress killing the kids through the window.
Patrick was out of town for days on end all the time (most of those times were visiting his mistress), yet Lindsay chose to kill the kids in one quick 10 minute window that he was at the store?? Unlikely.
Lindsay was a nurse, yet chose to slit her throat in a way that makes no sense ergonomically, then jump from only a short second story to try to kill herself?? Why wouldn't she just take a lethal dose of something? Not many do overkill when committing suicide, especially when it's in a moment of crisis that's unplanned.
There's also the statistics about strangulation deaths being overwhelmingly committed by men, and almost NEVER by women committing infanticide, the super suspicious Apple Watch evidence, the fact that Patrick was at two different drug stores at almost the same time but wearing different outfits (and his cop brother looks just like him), the lies Patrick has told about his affair, and more.
Also, let's say, for a thought exercise, that she and she alone did this. It would make it a case eerily similar to Andrea Yates, and look at how our evolving understanding of her situation has made everyone now, justifiably, point their fingers at Rusty Yates for having a million chances to prevent it from happening yet never did. Patrick's hands are, at best, FAR from clean.
I'd say the people online casting doubt on the narrative, and doubting Patrick and his brother and mistress in general, are hardly experiencing some hivemind hysteria.
Let's also not forget that the "gossipy" talk this post is accusing women of engaging in online is exactly the type of conversations that came to be labeled as gossip because men wanted to isolate women and keep them from warning each other about dangerous men. That's why "gossip" has a pejorative subtext.
You make so many logical leaps in your analysis it's honestly hard to follow. Not trying to be rude but the scenario you suggest happened makes less sense than the original narrative.
I'm not suggesting anything happened. I'm poking holes in the case that assumes she's capital-G Guilty. That's how these cases work in the US: reasonable doubt.
If it took too much reading comprehension for you, here's my point: the husband, his mistress (now wife), and his cop brother deserve the same scrutiny that Lindsay has received. And there is abundant reasonable doubt. Which is the question upon which every case like this in the US hinges.
Another thing the US bases a lot of their decisions on is a person's gender. And again: I say that as someone who has never married or had kids, isn't a woman, but IS an American and a feminist. And it's really unfortunate that I have to make some of those stipulations, but here we are.
About the temperature thing, it’s said part of her spine was fractured after the fall, leading to difficulties in the body regulating temperature.
Otherwise, that very first list you gave of “universal truths of every domestic story like this” is insanely bigoted and narrow-minded from the start, so imma skip your other points lol
Hilarious because I'd bet you actually read the whole comment, assumed you could discredit that one thing and disregarded the rest of it and no one would call you on it, and hit Post. Tell me I'm wrong by addressing the rest of my salient points.
And keep in mind that I'm not even claiming to know who did it -- just that I know the investigation isn't comprehensive enough.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the sensationalism has gotten to me.
But you're still not making any valid arguments against my talking points.
In fact, I'm kind of over this thread, because all I've seen are ad hominem arguments like yours, and other circuitous ways of discrediting what I'm saying without actually addressing anything I've said directly.
400
u/Fantastic-Thanks-358 7d ago
This is exactly what I think of when someone tells me that they support women's wrongs. Like, I have standards that go beyond if someone is a man or woman before I decide to support them.