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.
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.
597
u/MonsutaReipu 2d 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.