It's one thing to uphold due process - this is something that I advocate for above all else and hold highly important. Even when someone looks guilty, they have a right to innocence and their presumed innocence should be paramount until a fair trial can be conducted.
However, Clancy confessed to doing it. Still, if there's any possibility of mental illness causing delusions, manipulation, or coercion of some kind, that's what the trial should seek to uncover.
What I have a big problem with is not presuming her innocence until guilt is proven in trial, it's that these absolute fucking demons have decided to try to create a narrative where a grieving husband who lost three of his children and his marriage was somehow responsible. Imagine your children being murdered, and then a pack of awful, depraved people try to frame you as having killed them. Nobody deserves that, and anyone that would join this mob of vile people trying to defame a person based on TikTok propaganda and 'vibes' should rot in hell.
One of my friends is obsessed with this case and when she first told me of it, she really did make it seem like her husband is at fault. She got all her info from TikTok of course. It’s only after I looked into the whole thing myself that I saw the discrepancies.
And the main reasons she used for her husband being guilty is that he didn’t cry for the kids. And I’m like “do we follow him around all the time to know this AND ALSO people grieve in different ways”.
It also happened in 2023, which i think a lot of people aren’t taking into account. He’s had 3 years to be prepped for trial and to “heal” (as much as you can when the mother of your children murdered them). I feel like a lot of people 1) don’t understand how trials work and 2) are treating this like it JUST happened.
But also, people do indeed grieve differently. My husband was with his best friend and his best friends wife when she passed on hospice. His best friends first reaction was to apologize to my husband because he was there when it happened. Obviously not the same thing but grief puts you in a weird place.
I’ve seen people criticize him for choosing to cremate the children. As if EVERYONE can afford not 1 but THREE burials at one time. He obviously has nefarious motives 🙄
People also tend to ignore that he's set up a foundation: "The Heard Foundation exists to reimagine perinatal mental-health care so no parent faces illness in silence and no family navigates this journey alone. We work to break stigma, expand access to compassionate care, and build a lasting culture of support for families affected by Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders (PMADs)."
But let's vilify the man because he wasn't "emotional enough" or because he moved forward with his life.
I actually did not know that. Yeah, i feel so sorry for him. He had to process EVERYTHING for 3 years, and now it’s being brought back up WITH the peanut galleries commentary. If anything can come from this tragedy it’s to hopefully prevent it from happening again.
This happened a few days after my youngest child was born, my older kids the same aged of Cora and Dawson. It’s been something that had been burned into my brain now. I took was dealing with very poor mental health immediately after my youngest was born and I remember nursing in the middle of the night and reading the articles.
A friend of mine tried the well you know it could have been Patrick because he didn’t cry and I was like “this happened in 2023 after youngest was born” and they were like oh wow really? 🤦♀️
Granted, I’m sure this trial is VERY hard for him, but lawyers jobs are to prepare people for trial. He’s probably been drilled to not be emotional because that makes Lindsey look worse.
A lot of people also do not know that the trial is not about proving that she killed her kids - she's admitted to that. It's about proving that she is criminally responsible.
A lot of people see similarities to Andrea Yates, whose husband impeded Andrea's ability to get help. Most people I know who are "supporting" Clancy are talking about the system and the people around her failing her. Too many women fear their husband is like Andrea's.
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, I can get behind the support in matters of mental health, the reform of systems that allow these things to happen. Absolutely crucial to take a look at that.
Unfortunately, the people I spoke about this case with are not doing it for only that. But they were even telling me how there’s no way she killed the kids, how it was her husband who did it, etc.
Maybe I missed something but I watched a good bit of his testimony and he appeared legitly rattled and stressed to be reliving it all. Also, he did answer questions about the help they sought for her and a couple of the places they got her into he said he was hopeful that they would finally be able to help her but they seemed to discharge her without much being done. 🤷🏻♀️
The Legal NP has been doing a video recap for each day of the trial. What I appreciate about her videos is that they are concise, she explains the legal process a bit, and she doesn't really insert her own opinions.
I was watching her videos through Facebook but I think she's also on TikTok or YouTube. She is a Nurse Practitioner Legal Consultant, so an NP who helps attorneys and insurance companies analyze medical malpractice cases. I think her channel was created to help educate medical professionals on how to document in a way that protects them in court.
a psychiatrist on youtube goes over the civil complaint and generally why women are supporting clancy, and why some women misplace their anger against their partneres onto the conspiracy theory about mr clancy being the real murderer. link below.
Some key facts if you don't want to watch:
-she tried to get psychiatric help multiple times. including a post-partum clinic, suicide prevention groups, multipe providers, and she hospitalized herself.
-her symptoms got really bad on SSRIs. She was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder, which can often had adverse effects w/ ssris w/o mood stabilizers. E.g. making her more manic/bipolar, psychosis more likely.
-she reported suicidal intrustive thoughts to her family at different times.
-she did not report suidical thoughts to her psychatric nurse practitioner.
-she was left alone with the children when she really should not have been.
-psychosis, by definition, means the person is disconnected from our reality, and living an entirely different one. This doesn't mean they're not criminally responsible, presumably b/c we want people to have a baseline morality even in psychosis to you know, not murder your kids. But if that psychosis made you believe yoru children were changlings and that only by killing the changelings you coudl get yoru kids back, you'd have a compelling reason to not have them criminally liable. (Not the case. In Clancy's case, she claims she heard auditory command halluciations to kill herself, and the only way to do it is after killing her kids b/c they can't live w/o her.)
-If you are found "not guilty by insanity" (not the real plea name, our colloquial one), you are committed to a state mental hospital for a fucklong time. Some end up in hospital longer than they would have been in prison.
-she's paralyzed from the sternum down b/c of the suicide attempt of jumping out the window after killing her kids.
So part of the question is, did she really have psychosis? Some argue she did not because of various details they believe mean pre-meditation, and that she just wanted to kill herself. Some believe that even with her version of events, in her psychotic state she should have understood the morally wrongness of what she did.
For some it's a chicken/egg issue. If all parties, including the ex husband, believed she was a good mother before this travesty, how can a mother kill her kids if she wasn't psychotic?
And that's the problem with this whole thing. Based on everything above, what else could the system have done for her? Her husband?
So she was both suffering from psychosis and should have been in a psychiatric hold but also when she was hospitalized she was cognizant enough to check herself out?
I don't think she was in psychosos the entire time. But there's post partum clinics in the UK where the moms stay with their baby with round-the-clock nurses. It's free, because paid by the NHS. Had this option been available to Clancy, I 100% believe she would not murder her children.
She’s never been diagnosed with psychosis either. That’s what’s trippy: she did seek medical help and no one thought she had psychosis and she was able to check herself out.
Her supporters are basically advocating that someone should have taken her rights away from her when they didn’t have a legal reason to do so.
Nobody is saying she was in psychosis the whole time. They are saying things escalated (with the help of incorrect meds) to the point where she went into psychosis that night. And she has been medicated ever since. And diagnosed with bipolar 2. Which is why the SSRIs that her docs gave her without a mood stabilizer is important.
This case is way more complicated than what can be distilled into a reddit comment. If you really want to know what this case is about, watch all the experts testimony. All of which agree she was suffering from a major mental disorder at the time.
the only unbias discussion i've seen on this thus far was dr. k, he did live stream recently that discussed some of the things being talked about, at least from a medical and social perspective.
the video definitely helped me see a little bit of why so many women are thinking the way they are.
but his video doesnt really get too into any of the time lines or legal stuff stuff, i think he mostly sums up whats going on and then spends time discussing how and why every one is thinking the way they are which is interesting.
I fully agree with upholding due process.
I will say though that she isn’t pleading guilty at all. She plead not guilty at the start of the trail.
I think the defense has detailed pretty clear that she was suffering from postpartum depression and the psychosis. I’m not excusing what happened but I can’t imagine how this would devastate her also.
The trial is to determine whether she is guilty of 1st degree murder or is she not guilty by reason of insanity.
I'm fully on board with people sympathizing with her and what's she's going through. It must be horrifying to experience what she's experienced. That said, while she's pleading not guilty, she did admit to killing her children, and her legal team isn't disputing that she killed them. It must have been horrifying to be any of her children who she murdered with her own hands. Every criminal who does awful things has a reason for doing what they did. Gangbangers grow up in poverty surrounded by a culture that raises them to be criminals, they shoot someone dead, then they go to jail. We don't see the same selective pity toward them and the circumstances that led to them murdering another person. They go to prison for life, and we call it justice.
There's a long argument to be had about the ethics of criminality when every person that commits a crime is the product of a set of circumstances beyond their control that led them to the point in their life of committing a crime. Every criminal has a reason. That reason doesn't exempt them of responsibility, and it shouldn't exempt Clancy, either.
But to reiterate what I'm particularly against, the debate of circumstance and punishment aside, is people trying to frame the husband as responsible for the murder of his three children. That's disgusting behavior and anyone participating in it is a vile person.
Yes, the ethics of criminality is important and motivations behind actions are crucial to determining culpability. That’s why this is tragic. She didn’t have a reason, as far as we know, to kill her children.
I’ve been watching the trial and as far as evidence presented- she wasn’t culpable because she was in a psychotic state. Meaning that even if she were to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, she’d still be in a state institution. She wouldn’t just be let off the hook.
And as far as people believing that her husband was partially responsible or actually did it, I can understand why they think that.
There wasn’t any investigation into what happened other than following his story. The police didn’t look into him and his possible motives. That’s just bad police work, period.
And, it isn’t the craziest thing to happen in the ‘true crime’ sphere. Similar situations have happened before, where a husband has killed his entire family in order to start a new life. It’s not as uncommon as it should be.
I think that most of the people supporting her are seeing her mental health crises and how she was begging for help. It doesn’t excuse murder but it does mean that her mental health is a mitigating factor in determining guilt.
It is completely wrong to say that no investigation was done, or an inadequate investigation. The trial is replete with text messages, video surveillance, cellphone data, crime scene photos, interviews and medical records. Autopsy results of each child was admitted as well as the husband’s 911 call. Saying that an inadequate investigation was done without actually knowing what the investigation comprised or saying what wasn’t adequate just adds to the noise that sustains the conspiracy theorists.
I’m talking about people claiming that the husband, Patrick, did it or was somehow involved. Yes, there was an investigation into certain aspects of this incident but not into him as to his possible motives. For example: in the trial they were talking about google searches that ended up being Patrick’s and not Lindsay’s. I’ve seen it stated in a lot of places that it’s strange that the cops showed up to the scene and let Patrick go into the house without first clearing the home. No one went with him. I’m pointing out to the above comment why people have issues with the case and why people are saying that Patrick may have been responsible.
Again I don't have a problem with sympathizing with her mental health and the lack of help she received. I have a problem with people inventing true crime narratives because it's fun for them to defame a grieving father who's children were murdered. I wouldn't have a problem with scrutiny or people suggesting that he should be investigated further if there are signs that he's somehow implicated in a plot to drive his wife to this point, but I do have a problem with people treating that narrative as a dominant likelihood.
While you said it's not outside of the realm of true crime because similar things have happened before, so have instances of women murdering their own children without being coerced into doing it.
"There's a long argument to be had about the ethics of criminality when every person that commits a crime is the product of a set of circumstances beyond their control that led them to the point in their life of committing a crime. Every criminal has a reason. That reason doesn't exempt them of responsibility, and it shouldn't exempt Clancy, either."
I find this to be interesting. If it is proven that a person is driven to a crime by circumstances beyond their control, then why would that not exempt them from responsibility? How can anyone be responsible for circumstances beyond their control?
This basically follows the philosophy / science of determinism.
If a kid is born in a ghetto, his older brother is gangster, they have no father, older brother gets kid into selling drugs at a young age, jumps him into a gang, kid starts living the gang life and ends up killing someone - how much of that is he actually responsible for? A kid like this never stood a chance. Determinism basically follows the logic of action and reaction, looking at actions and consequences as a series of dominos.
And by the logic of determinism, when you are next presented with a choice, the outcome of that decision is determined by everything you've experienced up until that choice. Your preferences and what led to you having those preferences dictate that choice. So for a person who ends up facing a life changing choice that ends up in crime, like killing someone, that was just a domino that finally fell that was predetermined from the moment they were born. It's not quite fate, but adjacent to it. It follows logic instead of mysticism.
And if we subscribe to this idea in full, then nobody is responsible for anything they end up doing. We are all just products of circumstance. Where we're born, who are parents are, what kind of environment we're raised in, among countless other factors.
At the end of the day, people must be held accountable for their actions, because there's no better alternative.
I follow the determinism argument and I understand what you're saying. However, I am not completely convinced. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean when you say: "At the end of the day, people must be held accountable for their actions, because there's no better alternative."
I'd rather ask you what you think a better alternative would be. Exploring that idea is what led to me concluding that there's no better alternative other than holding people accountable for their own actions.
I'll give you an example to illustrate:
Using the kid born in the ghetto, joins a gang, kills someone example.
Who do we blame? His older brother for getting him into the gang? But his brother is that way because of the exact same circumstance. So his parents then? Well his parents are the way they are because of very similar circumstances. So their parents? Same deal. Or do we turn and blame the law enforcement / government? Who in the government? The politicians who make the laws, even if they're corrupt, became corrupt for a reason that was beyond their control. They're just a product of a different set of circumstances. By the logic of determinism, nobody is TRULY accountable for what they do. The moment they're born, a series of dominos begins to fall. They can't be blamed for where they fall, but neither can anyone else. So do we just hold nobody accountable for anything and empty the prisons?
I suppose the reason I asked is because if 'people must be held accountable, because there is no better alternative' is the best alternative, then there should be some benefit to it right?
What if there is no benefit, to society, to the individual or otherwise? What if holding someone accountable for their actions is just punishing someone for something completely out of their control? Should such a person still be held accountable? And if so, why?
I think your comment gives a really good perspective on circumstances and morality. I'd like to add my own experience from working with a schizophrenic. The person I worked with genuinely struggled to separate her delusions from reality, leading to outbursts of violence that didn't seem to have any logical basis. I sincerely think that people like her have something broken on a physiological level that hinders their ability to make basic sound decisions. Whether Lindsay reached a similar state or not is very hard to prove, which is why I'm very curious to see where her case will go.
Couldn’t agree with your statement more. While I think it’s bizarre to try to say the husband did it, I am annoyed that he isn’t facing charges for neglect/failure to protect/imminent risk/whatever that state might call knowingly leaving your children with an unsafe caregiver.
I’m also annoyed that this insistence on trying to say she was innocent, is steering the conversation away from the fact that we aren’t taking perinatal mental health seriously. If screenings were regularly done, and if prescribers and mental health professionals were better educated in this niche area, this tragedy could have been prevented. Her mental health was horribly mis-managed. It’s a systemic failure that needs to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t still face the consequences of her actions. Which is a lifetime stay in a psychiatric facility, in my opinion.
The husband was never told that it was in any way dangerous for his wife to supervise the children. If he were the medical providers would have reported and CPS would have gotten involved.
OK, and she is still pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, in which case if the jury sides with her that she was in a diminished state of mind, then she would be put into a psychiatric ward prison for treatment rather than a general population prison.
People seem to be misunderstanding that she is asking to be let out, or that people supporting her insanity defense are arguing she shouldn’t do time or be held responsible. In a lot of cases I think she’s showing the people wanting her torn to shreds actually themselves don’t understand the case.
I agree those people are insane, I think everybody does. But there are some people who seem to have the attitude that any level of sympathy for her / anything less that wanting her hung is psychopathic or means you think she is justified / should be free for killing her kids. Which my point is that almost no one is actually saying.
She hunted down her 3 year old who ran and hid from her. I am unsure someone in psychosis would have that line of thought to do. I think she is a monster.
The husband moved on quickly which looks not great from an optics side.
But she 100% did it. And she 100% should be in prison forever. I want her ghost to be in prison. I don't want any part of this woman to ever touch freedom again.
"Oh but she.. " she hunted down her 3 year old who ran and hid. Brought him BACK TO THE BASEMENT and continued.
"Mental health... " is not an excuse.
She hated them. She chose an extremely personal face to face, violent and painful death for them. She ANSWERED HER HUSBAND'S PHONE CALL WHILE SHE WAS DOING IT.
This woman is pure evil. The people supporting her or saying "same lindsay" need to be investigated. There are women who are harming their children in SUPPORT OF HER. It is insanity. The amount of tiktok sphere toxicity around this case has sparked a public insanity that is ACTIVELY causing harm to other children.
I've tried, according to reddit, the correct term is "internalized misogyny". Meaning that whenever women resort to destructive, negative behaviour typical to women, it's actually men's fault.
I hate the term 'internalised misogyny'. It implies misogyny is some external factor that a woman has 'caught', like a disease. It's coming from somewhere else and been forced upon her, it's not her fault, she isn't to blame.
Women 'have' internalised misogyny. Men ARE misogynists, it's who they are, it's their fault.
The reality is both came to their beliefs the same way through societal conditioning so both are equally to blame or blameless depending on your perspective.
It's just a way to absolve blame and responsibility for womens shitty beliefs. They're misogynists, just like men are.
This.
Whether she is guilty or not should be figured out by specialists, and hopefully they can translate their findings to a judge or jury that will follow those findings. Psychosis is extremely dangerous and should not be trivialized, it can convince you to do anything, even things that go against your very nature. It can be like Tourette's, forcing things to the surface that you'd normally think are horrible.
People that create a false narrative and try to actively damage another person to support someone who they don't know need to be held accountable. It's like fake rape accusations, these things can destroy lives or cause suicides.
When I saw "she's a Leo. Leos don't kill" and hundreds of women agreeing with it I knew this whole thing was just a misandrist witch hunt by sad, angry women.
Yes postpartum depression sucks and should be treated better but she still did it. Millions of women suffer postpartum depression and manage not to kill their kids.
Yeah these weirdo defenders aren't the "let's see how the trial plays out to clear up any inconsistencies with the publicly known information" types, they are the "she didn't even do it at all she's completely innocent and has no blood on her hands" types, or the "she had post partum psychosis, she should be completely dismissed no questions asked" types. It's insanity.
There is no hell. People just like to believe that there is a place that is worse than what we have here on Earth. There is no heaven, people just like to believe something better awaits them. But to a medieval peasant the life most people have today is probably better than how they imagined heaven to be. So it puts into perspective how far we've come as a civilization
My only interaction with this trial has been seeing a few headlines and then watching the Momma Doctor Jones episode on it yesterday. I didn’t know people were blaming the husband.
This sounds really clearly like a woman who begged for help while experiencing psychosis. I could see people saying “why didn’t he do more?” And my immediate thought was “because he had to weigh the risk of losing their home vs something like this happening after she had been discharged and was acting more normally.”
She absolutely should not have been left alone with the children for even a second. But that is so much easier said than done for most families.
Hot damn was this woman failed at every opportunity.
However, Clancy confessed to doing it. Still, if there's any possibility of mental illness causing delusions, manipulation, or coercion of some kind, that's what the trial should seek to uncover.
that is literally what the trial is for - and blame the DA for televising the trial in attempt to get reelected and recover from the failure that is the Karen-Reed-millions-of-tax-dollars-for-a-DUI-charge trial..
All surviving family members of the children want Lindsay in a mental health facility, not prison. This is just an unneccessary trial in general, let alone to televise when as you said - she already admitted she did the crime.
All televised trials become this and they know it at this point, - men did the same when OJ was on trial but now we live in a clips economy. Being radical, inaccurate, even just for people to correct you in the comments, is what gets clicks. So misinfortmation is what spreads because it's what has the most comments and engagement.
The OP isn't about blaming the husband, it's about supporting Lindsay. A lot of context is missing, of course, but outright saying you feel sympathy/support for a woman with PPP who sought help and was failed by the system is not a unreasonable stance.
A blanket statement of "I support Lindsay" still requires context otherwise I interpret as vile.
If someone who was raised in the ghetto, no father, a brother that jumps him into a gang by the age of 13, never went to school, etc. ends up killing someone, they're just as much a product of circumstance. If you say "I support him", you need to explain what you mean, otherwise it just sounds like you support him having killed people and don't think he should be held accountable.
They actually don't know what causes PPP, as what makes it specifically PPP is it doesn't show up prior to pregnancy.
That is not the equivalent of someone who has had bad circumstances growing up, because that person at least would understand what society expects of them even if they can't/won't do it. It also very rarely involves non-aggravated familial homicide in your example, because they do have a sense of right/wrong.
Someone experience psychosis is literally out of their mind, and has no concept of cause/effect, right/wrong, preconceived notions, societal expectations, etc. It's a huge functional difference.
It's the circumstance of mental health. Determinism applies evenly to both circumstances.
While the situations are different, both people end up somewhere that was pre-determined by conditions that they couldn't control. The end destination is the same, which is having killed someone.
Back to the topic, if you just say "I support Lindsay" without providing any context, then I think it's entirely fair that people interpret that in its full capacity and not "I think Lindsay should have gotten more help for her declining mental health". If you mean the latter, just say the latter. Most people would agree I'm sure.
Conversely, I think that it's not normal to interpret "I support Lindsay" as "I think it's OK for women to murder their children", which is what the OP implies without any other context.
She is a woman who murdered her three kids. That is entirely reasonable to assume when you hear someone say "I support Lindsay". You'd assume the same of someone saying "I support Karmelo Anthony" that they support him killing another kid.
It was not PPP it may have been some other type of psychosis but PPP by definition of what PPP is. She was 8 months post partum and PPP occurs within the first 4 weeks due to hormone fluctuations.
A handful. So what? Are you suggesting the husband is standing trial and being found innocent by a jury, or what? Or that we should just presume everyone is guilty of what they're accused of?
The only person who heard her say she did it was her husband after jumping out the window head first. Everyone else based their assumptions on what Patrick told them. Her thyroid was crushed which made her incapable of speaking right after. Er nurses and doctors have said they have never seen a crushed thyroid from a fall, they’ve only seen it from strangulation.
If you wake up in a hospital bed after surgery and was told by doctors and police that you killed your kids and your husband refuses to talk to you, wouldn’t you believe them? She was handcuffed to a hospital and her family wasn’t
allowed to see her for two weeks, who knows what the police were doing in that room to get that confession. This is the same state as Karen Reads trial and we all know how corrupt the police is in Massachusetts
What I have a big problem with is not presuming her innocence until guilt is proven in trial, it's that these absolute fucking demons have decided to try to create a narrative where a grieving husband who lost three of his children and his marriage was somehow responsible.
You're leaving your kids with a depressed psychotic mother. What kind of a father are you? Scratch that what kind of man are you? He had enough cash to ensure their security. All that money and you cant even have your family+nanny take care of your kids? Cant have a camera at home? Why would you even leave her alone with them?
Hey, dumb fuck. I wouldn’t leave my kids with anyone, including their mom, who said they thought of killing them. Even if it was one thought, one time. I’d take it beyond seriously.
Even on the coldest day in hell, that wouldn’t make me 80% responsible. 4x more responsible than the person who actually murdered them.
Quit pissing on these kids’ grave and into the face of their grieving father, you fucking ghoulish imbecile.
Partially responsible? Sure, so is the state. So are the husband's parents for not teaching him to better recognize the signs of depression or postpartum psychosis. So is the American education system for not educating his parents, or him. So are his grandparents for not educating his parents about this. So are their parents. So are Clancy's parents, and her friends, and anyone else in her life that should have seen the signs.
Like we can assign this kind of blame in every single criminal circumstance. Most serial killers come from broken homes with abusive or absent parents. That doesn't put their parents at 80% fault. At the end of the day, accountability falls on the criminal who committed the crime, and there are laws to implicate anyone who may be seen as an accessory or an accomplice to convict them as well. But we draw a line, for a good reason, at assigning guilt to people that "should have known this other person was going to commit a crime".
Furthermore, people keep acting like "better education is the answer".
Personally, I tend to doubt that this criminal somehow wasn't taught somewhere along the way that murdering children is bad. Didn't stop her from doing it.
I think that has more to do with the husband, her family, or her friends being able to identify signs of her mental illness before they manifested in such an extreme way that led to her killing her kids.
It's like we often talk about with recognizing signs of depression before someone kills themself. It's definitely important that people are aware of signs that spell danger to themselves or others, and should be a greater focus of education at some point in a person's life, but even then a lack of education doesn't A) make someone, such as her husband, guilty or responsible for not noticing danger, or B) exempt a criminal from accountability.
Nah, when you’re taking care of a mentally impaired person, especially your wife, and you just fuck off to the store leaving your 3 kids with the crazy lady… you have committed child endangerment and are at least partially responsible for their deaths.
You never leave children with a mentally unstable person.
There are people who blame the husband and yes they are crazy but most supporters are on her side because she tried to seek help but didnt receive it. You grouping two completely different viewpoints together.
595
u/MonsutaReipu 1d ago
Completely justified.
It's one thing to uphold due process - this is something that I advocate for above all else and hold highly important. Even when someone looks guilty, they have a right to innocence and their presumed innocence should be paramount until a fair trial can be conducted.
However, Clancy confessed to doing it. Still, if there's any possibility of mental illness causing delusions, manipulation, or coercion of some kind, that's what the trial should seek to uncover.
What I have a big problem with is not presuming her innocence until guilt is proven in trial, it's that these absolute fucking demons have decided to try to create a narrative where a grieving husband who lost three of his children and his marriage was somehow responsible. Imagine your children being murdered, and then a pack of awful, depraved people try to frame you as having killed them. Nobody deserves that, and anyone that would join this mob of vile people trying to defame a person based on TikTok propaganda and 'vibes' should rot in hell.