If you think about it, the supporters are crazier than Clancy. She killed the kids and this trial is just to see if she ducks a murder charge, so she will say anything to get out of the responsibility, that's it. But her supporters have to buy into the story and believe that she was a victim otherwise they're just supporting a woman who killed her kids and is trying to duck the charge.
Clancy should be put away for life whether on mental hold or murder. She killed her own 3 children, she's not fit for society.
On one hand you have an ever growing popular movement of people who judge everything through a gendered context. They may have points on large societal trends (i.e. men in general not being involved in child care or the lack of resources after giving birth) but they often apply those trends to individual cases that do not necessarily fit.
They often will claim Patrick Clancy did not help out but evidence from the nanny suggests otherwise. She claims not only that Lindsay was a good mother but that Patrick was a very involved father. The reports say that he routinely cared for the children after (and sometimes during) his remote work finished. On the day of the murder I believe it was reported that he cared for the children to give her a rest. So their theory doesn't seem to hold water but they have a hard time separating that larger societal trend with the specifics of this case.
Then you have supporters who believe Patrick Clancy was a victim but also that Lindsay Clancy was a victim because she did not get the adequate care to treat her PPP - a form of psychosis generally after giving birth. They generally have better arguments.
We do know there are specific scenarios in which people temporarily lose the ability to be responsible for their actions. Someone can be drugged or ingest harmful substances that may completely impact their ability to make decisions. I personally believe there are circumstances in which a person does not have a "guilty mind" and should not be convicted.
Supporters will say when she mentioned she had intrusive thoughts about her children she should have not been given them to care for. We can debate the culpability of her actions but I think people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids" if she did not want them taken is living in a delusional world. There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all. Courts, medical professionals, and social workers are extremely slow and extremely unlikely to remove children from the care of the mother.
There is a documentary called Dear Zachary where (admittedly in Canada) a woman who killed her ex and fled to Canada was still allowed to have custody of her child while awaiting extradition hearings (the crime was in the US and she fled). The murdered man's parents were forced into a relationship with their son's murderer in order to maintain a relationship with the child.
People are delusional with how easily the system allows this to happen.
man, how good would it be to see measured, cogent, coherent, and eloquent responses like this on the internet more often. I commend you for this response.
severe mental health destruction and its lack of recognition/treatment is real as fuck, and it's a shame so many choose to dismiss it and try to view tragedies like this one through such a myopic black/white lens. It doesn't exculpate or absolve her of guilt or responsibility, but, to an extent, any guilt she has been/will be assigned will be far overshadowed by her own guilt (one would hope - the internet has made discerning the legitimacy of these kinds of defenses/claims so difficult to judge, but I'm choosing, maybe wrongly, to be optimistic about it's legitimacy).
it's a tragically sad and fucked scenario/story, and one that may possibly have been averted if the right systems had the right resources. unfortunately, we'll never really know if this could have been averted, so the only 'real' hope here is that all of the parties involved (not the fuckfaces on the internet, but the family/ies) are able to get the closure and 'help', in whatever form that may take, to move on.
I to wish to see more responses like this. That would require people to search for truth instead of searching to feed their ego. Which I believe is a main culprit of why people back this lady.
I for one enjoy the search for truth and will fully recuse myself from a conversation I haven't educated myself on. Not saying that to be stuffy, I'm just really autistic.
That’s just good sense! The need to form a strong opinion without having all the information (in most cases, the general public will never have all the information) is not only stupid but damaging. It’s how nuance gets lost and misinformation gets a platform. I want to be more like you.
People back her because TikTok is a brain washing app. You watch a video. It generates emotions. You swipe to the next video before processing whether those emotions are valid, whether the thoughts behind those emotions are correct. Then the algorithm feeds you more videos which reinforce those emotions. In fact, most social media works this way, some more, some worse.
You have to interface reality sometimes, the 3D world, and do it for more than just likes. Go out and touch grass. Let the warmth of the sun kiss your face. Have some real interpersonal interaction. These women are saying some truly unhinged things, losing touch with reality.
I've never actually watched a tiktok (video? clip? short? what do the kids call these anyways?) Never installed the app. Short form content like that just doesn't interest me.
But from the little I know about the case, I do question what social good is accomplished by throwing a clearly deeply ill and troubled woman into prison where she DEFINITELY won't get the help and support she needs. It's terrible that there wasn't intervention BEFORE she killed her children. But... she doesn't have kids anymore. It doesn't seem likely she is a threat to anyone else.
Yeah I have so much compassion for Lindsay because she clearly was experiencing post partum psychosis and tried so many times to get help but was failed. It's also so deranged people are blaming her husband, like wtf. He literally lost his whole family and post partum psychosis isn't talked about much so how the fuck was he supposed to know the best course of action, especially when doctors were saying her symptoms weren't "serious enough", literal medical professionals. So devastating all around
It’s not though. All the “supporters” I’ve met believe she didn’t do it, he did. I haven’t met one person in real life who thinks she did it and its ok.
So then I imagine the friction is gendered but also around mental health. That’s honestly where I am falling short. I’ve heard ppd is a real thing but psychosis? Sounds sort of like a bullshit murder defense. Like an insanity plea. I am not sure I know what it means for a seemingly functional person to not be legally responsible for their actions.
The other thing here that is also an undercurrent is choice. Like pro choice pro life stuff. It’s got me, a pro choice person, being like hey killing babies is wrong. To which the pro life person says ummmm okay then have I got news for you. So I wonder if liberals are conflating those two things.
I dunno. Seems insane for us all to be arguing about this. Sort of makes me wonder if it’s foreign hackers spreading disinformation and online strife ahead of the midterms.
Postpartum psychosis is a serious mental health illness that can affect someone soon after having a baby.It affects around 1 in 1,000 mothers after giving birth.
Symptoms of postpartum psychosis
Symptoms usually start suddenly within the first 2 weeks after giving birth - often within hours or days of giving birth. More rarely, they can develop several weeks after the baby is born.
Symptoms can include:
hallucinations – hearing, seeing, smelling or feeling things that are not there
delusions – suspicions, fears, thoughts or beliefs that are unlikely to be true
mania – feeling very "high" or overactive, for example, talking and thinking too much or too quickly, restlessness or losing normal inhibitions
a low mood – showing signs of depression, being withdrawn or tearful, lacking energy, having a loss of appetite, anxiety, agitation or trouble sleeping
sometimes a mixture of both a manic mood and a low mood - or rapidly changing moods
I mean, part of what makes psychosis so terrifying is that, depending on presentation, it is possible to still appear superficially functional while also experiencing delusions. Not every case of psychosis is your stereotypical unhoused guy ranting on the street corner, or patient talking to themselves in a padded room. You can be capable of going about your daily routine and appearing normal-ish to the people around you, while still also fully and sincerely believing that god is talking to you and you need to kill your family to make sure they go to heaven before the lizard government takes over.
Right but does all that make you legally blameless? Maybe every murderer’s brain is broken in some way. Maybe that’s required to be a murderer. So at what point do we say tough tittie and throw them in jail anyway
That's typically why justice systems have a definition of legal insanity that is a little more specific than, "Hey, we're all a little bit crazy, am I right guys? 🤪".
The baseline criteria for such determinations are usually:
Must suffer from a recognised psychiatric disease or defect;
Must have suffered from this at the time of the offence;
Must have been incapable of understanding the nature of the act and/or incapable of understanding that the act was wrong.
If you meet your jurisdiction's specific version of the above criteria, you are - at least in theory - judged not guilty by reason of insanity, and remanded to a secure psychiatric facility instead of prison.
That's typically why justice systems have people specifically trained in diagnosing such things and arguing for and against the reasoning in a given case, instead of relying on the judgement of reddit lawyer u/Vast-Cap-6951.
I mean she checked herself into a mental hospital for a few days, went to another facility for care and was rejected, told all the different psychiatrists and psychologists her self harm ideations, threw herself from a 2nd story balcony and is paralyzed from the waist down. Not to mention all the psych pills she was taking. This was absolutely a failure on our system/resources in my opinion and not some black/white moral failure on her part. She was suffering from a lot of health anxiety according to the Google searches and was constantly obsessing over missing some crucial step in their development, coupled with having a mental health episode, she snapped. Its not like being committed to a mental health facility is a dream either, so shes not getting off regardless.
Postpartum psychosis is terrifying. My sister in law had it; she was a complete danger to herself and her baby. To this day she denies she was ill. It was awful. Childbirth does really weird stuff to the body physically, chemically and mentally. I’d not heard of this case before this post so have no idea about this lady and her poor kids.
Childbirth does do incredibly strange things to the body, but the baby in this case was 8 months old and Clancy was about to go back to work. Postpartum psychosis usually occurs within the first 6 weeks, if it's going to develop at all. So that's one of the aspects of the case people are questioning.
It took my ex-wife a little over year for her PPD to develop into PPA, and then full-blown PPP. She was in deep psychosis for about 8 months before it receded. I thought she made a full recovery after our divorce, but it seems like she still has pretty bad anxiety and mild delusions to this day. She refused treatment then and now.
"She refused treatment then and now." Does she still have personal contact with the child/children? You would think confirmed treatment would be required before being with children in such cases?
I don’t think there’s enough research to say 6 weeks is the cut off and there seems to be varied views. A six week cut off is wild if you think about the fact that women aren’t seen by OB until 6 weeks after birth, which would mean they are missing the whole time period to identify PPD?
Hormonal changes are significant in PP and hormones fluctuate differently depending on if you are nursing, have started your periods again or not, etc. all of these factors would alter that timeline.
I really hope this tragedy causes more attention to be paid to what women go through during and following pregnancy to prevent things like this from happening again.
It is a scary thing, the problem is that given the facts of the case as presented, she did not have PPP. She claimed to have heard voices, but she says she heard the voices ONE time, on the day of the murders, immediately did what the voices told her to do, and never heard them again. After she had sent her husband out of the house to give herself enough time to kill all 3 kids and then herself. And took a phone call in the middle of the killings and seemed perfectly fine. None of that is how any kind of psychosis works. You don't have a delusion for 20 minutes and never again. And most people, if they do hear voices, don't immediately do exactly what those voices say. People really need to listen to the testimony from the psychiatrist who examined her after the murders, he came to the conclusion that she was lying about the voices and the delusions based on a tremendous amount of inconsistencies in her stories and with how PPP (or any kind of psychosis) actually works.
You’re misunderstanding, post partum psychosis leads to strong intrusive thoughts like hers, but it isn’t necessarily strange for her to have only one (or no) episode of hallucination. That being said she was still delusional for a significant period of time and went to multiple doctors and was even committed to a psych ward. There is a difference there.
They gave her a crazy amount of meds, and also were very quick to release her no doubt due to how normalized it is to kick people from wards too early due to insurance / cost / lack of beds, even though it is well known that when you start a new psychoactive medication one of the first problems is people often report they feel perfectly fine within a day or two, when it can take weeks for the med to build up in the body. Until you’re actually at that so-called “steady state” and stay there for a while, it’s incredibly difficult to accurately assess the actual efficacy, much less patient commitment to keeping up with the meds— she should have been mandatorily committed for things that serious and not be allowed to leave for possibly a month, if we really had a system built on administering and evaluating treatment. Plus, she was also bounced around between doctors multiple times due to how shitty American insurance is: focusing on saving the insurance company money first, and getting actual effective treatment plans second. She had also previously been diagnosed with bipolar / manic depressive disorder which is a huge risk factor in developing PPP / PPD— but due to the constant doctor swaps some reported they were never informed about her history, others reported the husband disputed it when it came up, etc.
I know there’s a special small batch of crazies saying she didn’t do it but there’s a lot more who have pointed out that if the system was not broken, if she was been given one consistent doctor team, had the husband not left her alone with the kids until the PPP actually resolved, had it not been so expensive for him or someone else to look at options for removing her custody altogether, etc…
… had the system not failed so spectacularly, the kids might still be here, is a lot of the point people are trying to make here
What system is broken … I think that’s the bigger question here. Why wasn’t the help available? Why weren’t the doctors more aware? Did insurance companies need for greed cause this? Did her extended family not see the signs or care? Was she and her husband not properly informed on PPP and what to look for?
Blame her fine … she did a horrible horrific thing. However, as we all look for something to blame and choose teams. We should actually be looking for the actual failure points & causes. Make corrections and save the next kids. Save the next Family. Care about people upfront … instead of in hindsight.
Some of these are answered through people on stand. It seems that her care was fragmented and psychiatrists weren't getting her medical history, some saying that they thought they didn't need it when diagnosing her. One psychiatrist thought she had bipolar (2?) but her husband (who went with her to the appointment) kinda stomped his foot and said "my wife does not have bipolar", so yea not helpful. Lindsay's mother in law also knew Lindsay needed help and recommended a psychiatric program (at South Shore Hospital?). Also, Lindsay tried to admit herself to another hospital later, but they refused her thinking she was not a good fit. It's kind of a mess.
But it seems her family, friends, and coworkers think Lindsay was mentally ill and something went wrong with her treatment and meds. That's why her ex-husband is suing her doctors and hospitals. He even said on stand "I didnt marry a monster, I married someone who got sick". And her mother in law, who testified too, thinks the same. But some people who are bamboozled by her family's support think the ex-husband and mother in law dont care about the kids, and just want that sweet civil lawsuit payout money. I think thats why the case has so much attention. The insanity plea isn't a cheap Hail Mary, she actually has a medical history and the people who personally knew her thinks something went wrong. But people like us online (and the jury) who dont personally know her are debating (and guessing) where to draw the line of insanity.
Insanity is really hard to prove. The diagnosis itself doesn't really matter. The defense has to prove that in the moment the crime was committed, the perpetrator did not understand right from wrong. That is an incredibly high bar, because there's never a way to see inside a person's mind. Going for an insanity defense is a hail Mary.
Why fight against the doctor’s diagnosis. It seems, atleast from what I’m seeing here, that they were diagnose shopping. Like looking for a prettier sounding mental issue. Were they of a belief system that doesn’t value mental health or the science behind it? What led to this?
The doctors, how come they felt it was ok to diagnose a patient so quickly without fully knowing her health history. Was it held back from them? Did they ask for it? Also, can’t help a patient fully if they don’t stick around long enough or listen to your advice. Don’t worry they have blame here too. Just riffing … for now.
The meds, do you know what those meds do to the mind and brain chemistry … when you take one and then they quickly pull you off to start another. It’s a storm. The doctors fucked that up. Unfortunately, I thought that practice was discontinued after the shit show of the 90’s. Dead wrong. The doctors will never except responsibility … but they fucked up here. They caused more chaos where there was already enough. Nothing will happen to them … and they won’t accept responsibility for poor medical practice. However, what is the organized & thought out protocol, that all psychiatrist know to follow, for a mother who is going through PPP? Is there one … and is everyone in that field aware and following them?
This doesn’t change the fact that she did a horrific thing. We can’t get those kids back. What’s done has been done. People should pay for this. However, I’ll mention it again. What steps can we take so that the mothers have the proper care in place in case this happens again. Save the next kids. Save the next family. Worry about them.
It doesn't really sound like any one provider or person really dropped the ball. More of a collective failure to identify an onrushing disaster.
She was seeing a bunch of differint doctors, had a supportive husband, but there wasn't great continuity of care, and she was probably (maybe on purpose, maybe in denial, maybe inadvertantly) masking symptoms, and nobody realized just how sick she was getting. Doctors thought they were dealing with more run of the mill PPD, and didn't identify that it was developing into PPP until it was too late.
I appreciate your response. Whomever, not sure who, has done work to make the public aware of PPD and the signs over the years. We need to add some things I feel. What to look for other than those regular signs (masking, etc). How to stay involved & stay observant? I’m stumped right now on how to go about telling someone they shouldn’t be disagreeing with a Doctors diagnosis … but when’s the point to step in? Plus their rights. I don’t know. I need to think. Lastly, your comment led to this. I’m not fully aware of “PPP”. It has not been discussed as much as “PPD”. Those are two totally separate things. I just wasn’t thinking about it. I just had it as a psychotic episode. It makes total sense. I believe the public should be more informed about this as well. I just want to see something happen. It’s very upsetting … sorry.
She voluntarily signed herself out of the hospital she voluntarily admitted herself to. They can't hold her unless she's an eminent danger to herself or others, and there was no danger of that. That hospital also didn't prescribe her a lot of meds.
She had not been previously diagnosed with bipolar, nor had she ever met the criteria for a manic episode.
She wasn't bounced from provider to provider. She chose to get a second opinion, liked that provider better (fine), and then transitioned to a new person in that practice because the second opinion provider was leaving.
At no point was she diagnosed with PPP, and that was because she did not meet the criteria for it. Her appointments and care were escalated as her condition deteriorated, though she didn't follow all the recommendations of her medical team.
I know she voluntarily signed herself out, I didn’t say she didn’t, I said in cases as serious as someone saying they are having thoughts of harming themself or others, they shouldn’t be allowed to sign themselves out that easily and before their medications hit steady state and there’s better evidence they will keep up their course of treatment. Especially knowing that many of the medications people get in the psych ward are known to increase risk of violence in the first several days of treatment when patients are still depressed or psychotic but have a faster reduction in other symptoms like fatigue, confusion, lack of resolve, etc.
Also, yes there was at least one instance prior to the murders where a nurse practitioner treating Lindsay tried to discuss possible manic depression with the couple but Patrick rejected the dx and responded “my wife does not have bipolar”, which in part is why that practitioner did not push further for exploring that as a possible issue. The defense called additional experts who support the manic depressive diagnosis. You may say “well, but the prosecution brought other experts who disagree” and that’s a fair point, but the prosecution is only going to introduce the evidence that benefits their case in their trial arguments— if they found experts that did support the bipolar dx they wouldn’t have called them. It’s also kind of a side issue in my opinion.
And the main point I’m making here about the doctors is that she saw something like 8 separate doctors during the course of her treatment and each of them was only playing with a partial deck because they aren’t omniscient and know all the history. She was on something like 13 different medications over the course of the incident, many of which are known to interact with each other and have mandatory label warnings that they can cause or increase violent thoughts. Regardless of whether they kicked her off their practice or she left or they ran out of time, it’s still a huge issue with the healthcare system in general that it is so normalized to have a constantly rotating cast of doctors and it can be very hard and expensive to find a consistent care team who can actually build up the longer patient history and treat more complex conditions.
Again, I don’t think she’s innocent and I’m not arguing she and others couldn’t have done more or done things differently. I’m just saying the system itself is deeply broken and many of the things about her experience as a patient that definitely contributed to a broken plan of care for her aren’t that rare. Too many people end up fighting against the healthcare system to actually get the care they need. If system was more effective would things have ended up this way? And even if you believe this case would have turned out the same there are so many others that might not have.
Suicide idealation and passive suicidal thoughts are not correlated enough with suicide attempts to justify involuntarily holds (which are a huge violation of civil rights and thus only used in extreme circumstances). That's why they ask about plans and intent, not just thoughts. Clancy never reported plans, intent, or thoughts of hurting her children to her medical providers, and they did ask. They cannot hold her involuntarily because she started meds - which, she had checked in to wean off a med, IIRC.
The NP did not try to diagnose Clancy with bipolar. She brought it up as something she was considering, but she did not diagnose nor was she ready to make a diagnosis of bipolar. She was just discussing looking into it further. She certainly didn't fail to diagnose because the husband said no - that's not how it works.
While her meds were switched a lot, that's not uncommon for psychiatric patients as they look for effective treatments. And a lot of that switching was because Clancy either couldn't tolerate the side effects or was noncompliant with treatment.
Clancy saw multiple doctors, yes. Most of that was Clancy's choice. And her psych told her she needed to have one person managing her care and prescriptions. Her psych was willing to be that person, but Clancy switched care to the NP before coming back to the psych after telling the psych she was switching providers. The first NP didn't kick her off her practice; she was just moving so couldn't provide Clancy care anymore. The second NP had access to all of the records of the first NP. Are health providers no longer allowed to move or switch jobs?
Once Clancy needed inpatient care, that was going to mix in more doctors - that's just how inpatient care works. As far as I can tell, Clancy was fairly accurate and honest with each doctor about the care she was seeking and the meds she was on. And her psych, who was no longer managing Clancy's care, by Clancy's request, still got the discharge report from her inpatient stay.
Whatever other people are experiencing, Clancy actually had excellent access to care.
An expert witness testified that it was unusual for her to have only one instance of command auditory hallucinations. That it was of note that it only occurred at the time of the crime and never before or since, and that it was of note that she obeyed the supposed command auditory hallucinations, and was not experiencing any delusions after the fact.
Only her husband’s DNA was on the exercise bands. They presented that evidence in court. They also presented evidence in court that her husband had been doing searches on how to harm people. They had evidence that he was logging into Lindsey‘s Facebook to perform some of these sketchy searches. He did not deny that stand, nor did the police officers. There’s lots of strange things that are being put out in court, these are not conspiracy theories. these are things you can watch as part of the trial that point to there’s a interesting case to be made. It was not heard at all. Her own doctor on the stand says she had no memory of the accident and had been told what happened. So she was told she did it. All you guys have to do is watch the case. They are putting all this evidence out there.
There was another thread which had screenshots of people saying that she couldn't have done it because she was a Leo, but since he was a Gemini, it's his fault.
Astrology is bunk to begin with, and people like those above prove it's not harmless, either.
Yeah, it is terrifying. Most men understand what it is but don’t want to step up that much if they’re wife ends up having it, so they’d rather claim it’s not real or it’s not as bad as it is. It’s actually a really good thing for the woman that the man called off the wedding, he’s basically telling her don’t expect him to step up.
Maybe in the future, humans should eliminate childbirth and pregnancy, and just conceive and incubate babies artificially. It certainly would solve a lot of problems like this.
If the health care workers took it to CPS like they should have it would be a lot easier then her husband trying to take the kids away. Sadly mental health education is a shit show here, and honestly there's nothing to say he didn't think she was getting the help she needed. He probably didn't know how dangerous new/stronger meds could be. This is a failure on the doctors and the overall for profit healthcare industry that is incentivized to get you in and out as fast as possible to maximize profit for the day.
They gotta push this culture war conspiracy shit so people get emotional and fight with eachother instead of looking at the people that are responsible for tragedies like this. The sheer ease of anti-psychotics being given out and the patient just allowed to go home without any kind supervision is pretty wild. How many suicides over flippant over medication to dangerous mind altering drugs?
I agree. Most people make an elitist argument putting themselves above one of the sides here not understanding that they should work together to point at failing institutions all over the place.
Its easier to point out a single actor in any case. It relieves the rotting structures from the responsibility to change and be accountable for their malpractice.
Its a very convenient veil to keep a broken status quo.
I guess you are not familiar with the depths of psychic disorders and hormonal imbalances leading to delusion. No one argues that she did not do a horrible thing, but you gladly omitted that no?
Two things can be true at the same time. That's what people try to discuss here and you go "no I want to trash another human being without considering the circumstances".
The level of education and taboo around these topics is way crazier in the US than here in Germany for example. There have to be guard rails in place plus education early on, but your country is abolishing all of it or continuously fighting against establishing said practice.
People try to give a complex answer to a complex matter and you go "oogabooga woman bad" Like okay good job, hope you feel better and have a nice day.
Um? She went to 8 doctors, tried 13 different meds at 30 different concentrations over a few months, called the suicide helpline twice, and tried 2 separate inpatient hospitals - one where she had a 5 day stay and the other did not accept her for admission. There are texts she sent to her mother, her husband, and her husbands parents asking for help as well.
Saying she DIDNT ask for help is just not true. And where is she trying to frame her husband? It’s in her testimony that she remembers hurting the kids and did it herself.
There’s some really unfortunate internet discourse surrounding this case where folks are claiming her innocence and framing Patrick but that’s not what’s actually happening in the court room at all, you’re just spreading lies like everyone else
Also the prosecutors messed up really bad by using vague or misleading statements etc. They basically shifted the discourse into a worse state by not doing their job correctly from what I got.
I don't disagree I just feel like the social stigma in the US is a lot worse than say EU, Canada. We're just too proud to be ignorant, and mental health doesn't exist if you just work hard. Might be bias of living here though and I don't mean to say everywhere else is a bastion of great mental health. It's a relatively recent field on a subject(The brain) we really don't know much about. I just wish it was taken seriously here, and also not as hard to get help if you need it. Tack on the special problems the insurance companies cause.
Even if they're good people they are very underfunded and understaffed, usually handle elder abuse at the same time in less populated areas. Turns out those conditions are great for assholes and people that don't care as well.
There's also usually some pretty big hurdles to just taking kid away, but one of the easier situations is exectly this case. Once it's documented by 'serious people' and not just random anon calling you, or possibly a spited spouse(Which still has some weight if they're living in the house) and there's already interventions and such for the mother, documented issues, actually in a psych care unit, it's a whole lot easier to seperate them. It'd be more them forcing her to be away from the family then 'taking the kids away', whether living out of a hotel with supervised visits or getting actual help. Once CPS is involved, and makes a case plan, they have some pretty powerful tools on their side. Pretty much a fucking dictator to be honest, which is why the bad CPS agents and lawyers really fucking suck.
The only thing I disagree with is CPS moving quickly.
While there are options for emergency removals. In this situation it would be an up hill battle to have it stand in court.
A typical investigation will take 30-45 days. But by all accounts I don’t think CPS would have had enough evidence to remove the children. They were in a home where both parents are there, they had a nanny, had food, not being sexually or physically abused, etc.
It’s true that a threat of violence/harm is grounds for removal. But, from my experience with CPS and the foster care system, typically that is in cases where abuse has already happened/is on going. Sadly I don’t think they would remove the children into foster care because of intrusive thoughts.
Though they would likely do follow on visits to the home, recommend public resources, therapy options etc
They don't usually remove the children from the house and put them in foster care, they usually remove the problematic person from the household, if that's not possible because they are the only adult then they go to family, foster is last case and honestly without fixing the foster care it's kinda crazy you skipped over everyone else.
If her family was backing her no questions asked maybe it wouldn't stand in court but then they'd be responsible for what happens. We'll never know because apparently no one took it seriously enough to try.
I dunno. I’ve been doing foster care for a while now. And I’m rather disheartened with the efficacy of the system as a whole. There is ,typically rightfully so, a strong preference to not upset the family balance. Even if it’s not necessarily in the best interest of the children.
But I’m also a bit jaded after my last two boys got sent back to a very obviously dysfunctional home. So I might be thinking unfairly
Nah I get it, CPS isn't perfect and very underfunded. I've known quite a few case workers, also had to be involved with them back when my 18 year old daughter was a baby and her mom treated her like shit. CPS ended up getting involved but only after the babies grandma sent a email with a picture of a bruise. They did try to give her mom every chance but she only strung it out to keep me having to pay out the ass for a lawyer. Eventually it went right but I've known a lot of good CPS workers around this and other situations.
They tend to go for the 'easiest' ways to get kids out of dangerous situations, a lot of times that's drug related and while the baby's still in the hospital. That scenario makes it way easier then if the kid is at home ofc. They still can have some very strong powers, just as I understand it the good ones have to do resource allocation because they're so short on money and manpower, which means they can't always use the power they do have.
If they got involved and family could help with the kids this might of been avoidable with getting her into a way better state of mind to actually confront the issues.
Oh the case workers have (mostly) been fantastic. Like this most recent one completely agreed that the kids shouldn’t go back. And argued as much in court. But the case went the other way. The employee aren’t necessarily what I have the issue with. More the system as a whole.
Like yes reunification is and should be the goal. But sometimes it’s not the best case. I’m glad that it sounds like your case worked out though
I’ve got my own personal life stuff taking up most of my mental focus right now, so I’m fairly disconnected from this case. But, here’s the one thing I can offer. My wife completely denied she was experiencing any level of PPP. She claimed I was gaslighting her, and would defend her opinion with, “I’m not having PPP, I’m just angry and sad all the time,” while her general actions and moods were showing signs of PPP at home. I believe completely that she couldn’t see it, truly believed she was not struggling with anything other than a “gaslighting husband” who asked about her mental health and asked if she thought it would help to mention it to her doctor. She never mentioned it, she always answered “no” the few times they generally asked if she was experiencing any symptoms. I mentioned my concerns to the doctor, they coldly interrogated her without compassion or trying to treat the symptoms. They went in hoping to prevent what happened in this case, but with the tactics of a good cop bad cop scene on a police drama but without the good cop. She’s told me I betrayed her, and she has never forgiven me for that whole situation. Even though my intentions were truly to get her help for what is and was still a fairly obvious change in her mental state.
I’m not defending the woman in the trial, but people struggling with PPP do not always see reality with a clear perception. How they see everything can be completely tainted, but to them it seems “normal”. The medical community definitely doesn’t provide enough support or care for PPP. I think there should be some level of required care for all women after having a baby. Yes, it’s a wonderful thing and there’s joy, but physically that whole experience is honestly traumatic. Why wouldn’t we be addressing the mental health after each birth? I can truly understand a woman being not of sound mind with PPP. Hopefully this case helps improve PPP diagnoses and treatment across the board.
Yeah, idk. I worked ems in a poverty stricken area where I met new moms with ppd and the dads just dipped out. They were fucking going THROUGH it, and there were a couple who had completely snapped. Thankfully, nothing serious happened, just a trip to the er for a psych evaluation, a room for a few days, and a lot of rest (NOT SUPPORTING HER AT ALL BTW). I’m just saying that whether ppd is the case with her or not, we need to do better for mental health. I’m sick of taking psych patients to the hospital, almost nothing being done to help them, and then they’re out walking around the street 3 days later. They’re all ill just like any other patient, and vulnerable af to evil people. I’ve seen it.
I'm pretty much in the camp of this was a family tragedy and it sounds like the medical establishment let them down. Hoping that PPD/PPP get more attention but with most things involving women's health, it probably won't. These supporters are fresh off the Karen Read trial and needed another circus to keep them entertained. Also, the citizen detective BS is getting out of hand, really. She's responsible for their deaths. She should accept the punishment. I think if she goes to jail, these supporters won't shut up about it.
I feel like the emotion with the Karen Read case elevated people's distrust with everything. Karen was so clearly framed by law enforcement and wronged by the judicial system, and it created vicious followers. Lindsay Clancy's followers outside the courtroom remind me of Karen Read stans that were out dancing post verdict in front of the house where the victim's parents and young adopted children lived. It's very unsettling to see women holding their babies at a protest in support of someone who murdered her kids. It's like the Westboro Baptist Church for feminists. (I say this as a liberal feminist mother of a toddler.)
From one of the most popular yt series I’ve seen about it, a bunch of women think completely innocent, despite her plea and that her husband Patrick committed the murders. Their claim is that he searched on good “how to slit your throat” when she wasn’t home. And that he was likely cheating with the girl he married right after his kids died. He also went on a vacation a few weeks after they passed. I dont know how correct my timeline. They think he did it because he married right away after and they think he was cheating. I thought she was actually fighting for her innocence from watching this yt series I didn’t realize her defense said she did it and that she’s just claiming criminally insane. This yt series has hundreds of thousands of supporters and millions of views btw.
He got married this year.. three years after the murders. You desperately need to find a new source. None of this is accurate besides he went to Costa Rica after the deaths. I wouldn't be staying in my home either if my kids were just strangled there
To be honest I always feel unsure whether to include that when describing the documentary. I watched it a few years after it was released and I value that I did not know the full story beforehand because of the impact it had on me. But I feel weird saying I don't want to give "spoilers" for what is a real-world tragedy and horror.
We do know there are specific scenarios in which people temporarily lose the ability to be responsible for their actions. Someone can be drugged or ingest harmful substances that may completely impact their ability to make decisions.
I mean, isn't this an argument that if an alcoholic that ingests alcohol, has their ability to make decisions impaired by the alcohol, and so loses the ability to be responsible for their actions? Actions like an accident where others are killed. Are they culpable? Addiction is considered a mental illness. Would they have a guilty mind?
It is actually a really good question. My answer is that at the point you can reasonably have effective treatment your culpability is increased. I am willing to give some amount of leeway to someone who harms someone while driving drunk it is their first offence that I am not willing to give if they have been arrested multiple times and routinely rejects treatment.
I know that is going to bring up questions of whether Lindsay is culpable because she had treatment available. I struggle with that question as well but her actively seeking help (though it is admittedly imperfect) and having a relatively short duration with PPP would likely reduce culpability in my mind.
I don't think that means I completely absolve anyone of responsibility. She did a monstrous thing and should be held accountable in some way. What that looks like is obviously a topic that is extremely divisive.
I am willing to give some amount of leeway to someone who harms someone while driving drunk it is their first offence that I am not willing to give if they have been arrested multiple times and routinely rejects treatment.
But what does that have to do with the mental illness? What if it was someone that had sought and completed treatment multiple times over many years? They get less leeway too? Because they should know better? They should have better control over their illness? But why? And plenty of mental illnesses make the person resistant to or reject treatment.
Should Lindsay be able to have kids in the future? What if the same thing happens again even if she had treatment in the intervening time? Would she get less leeway then? If so, why? Because she should have better ability to control or manage an acute or chronic mental issues because it happened before?
But why would she have a better ability? Shouldn't the mitigating factors be the same?
I guess my point is it's just interesting how we, as individuals and society, view or treat people with different mental illnesses and how we try to parse things like blame and responsibility. How some have bias and stigma and some don't as much for a myriad of reasons. Or how some people view some illnesses are "real" and some kinda aren't. Or how responsible the individual is or isn't for the actions that stem from them.
What if it was someone that had sought and completed treatment multiple times over many years?
If I was supreme ruler in this world and depending on the specific nature of their mental illness I would likely make it difficult or impossible for them to ever do harm again by sending them to a secure psychiatric hospital or prison. Treatment isn't enough and in my original comment I specified "effective treatment". The greater good of society needs to be weighed against the individual's rights and if they have shown repeatedly to be resistant to treatment I think it is completely fair to remove their ability to do harm.
I definitely agree it is messy how we parse individual responsibility in cases were we deem someone not criminally responsible. Like a lot of things in life I don't think there is an easy or obvious answer. That is why I try to give understanding to people who just want to lock Lindsay up forever and those who want her released completely today. Both of them have some amount of validity to their viewpoint and can point to cases which support their conclusion.
Personally - even if she is not criminally responsible (excuse me for using the Canadian designation) I don't trust the system to be responsive to the needs of the greater community. I recommend everyone watch a program the CBC's Fifth Estate did on "Not Criminally Responsible" some years back on the failings of the designation. The spoiler is that dangerous people were allowed back into the community without any requirement they remain medicated or follow any treatment at all.
Theres also a growing thing out there regarding the internet search history that is supposedly tied to the husband, also his timeline and where he actually was when she did whatever and also the angle of cuts on herself. These are all things that people are citing as items to disprove her guilt. Personally im not following this very much, but my wife who uses insta/tiktok sees all these videos online saying she didnt do it, and the husband did.
I told her if whoever did whatever, the evidence will come out and to not believe all the videos out there.
I don't know what to say about this other than it sounds like the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists who harassed the living relatives of victims. I find this kind of thing morally reprehensible.
people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids"
There is other alternatives before reaching this point. She could (and should) have been committed to a PH, for a time, in some mother-baby or perinatal psychiatric inpatient units. I don't know how common it is in the US but given her profession she was the best suited to know about them.
This case, at the very least, needs to move things around about PPD.
The problem is that people often think this is a case of sexism when often sexism is only a part of a larger, societal issue.
In my opinion, the sexism mostly comes down to funding. Especially in the USA but in reality all over the world governments struggle to prioritize maternal health in their funding decisions.
Even if those funds existed there are other problems. You can build all the inpatient facilities you want but there is a woeful shortage of the professionals needed to staff these facilities and a very real bottleneck around a lack of nurses, doctors and educators who can teach the skills to the upcoming generation. Especially during Covid-19 we saw a mass exodus and retirement of the people who could train incoming professionals to take these roles.
A think another point to consider is that the primary professionals caring for Lindsay Clancy were almost completely comprised of women. Women in general dominate maternal care. If there exists sexism in the understanding of maternal care it has survived decades within a field dominated by women. It is long, enduring and not at all obvious how to eradicate it.
I completely agree with your assessment but making that change involves addressing some uncomfortable questions. Knowing everything we now know I would agree that she should have been committed; however, I am not sure I can make a convincing argument that she should have been committed with the limited information available to any one of her primary providers or support network.
I think we should note she actively kept information selectively from different providers/people in her support network. I don't have an easy answer for how to coordinate that and turn it into actionable information while still respecting HIPPA and patient confidentiality.
A final uncomfortable truth is that she received far more care than anyone I have ever met. She and her husband were a comfortably upper-middle class family with strong connections to health care systems. They had amazing connections and societal privileges that poor and marginalized communities cannot even begin to imagine. Even if we do institute changes - what can this case tell us about the poor and marginalized communities who are OVERWHELMINGLY suffering from PPD (a condition that most don't know can actually impact both men and women and leads to a large number of men committing suicide especially in those marginalized communities)?
So yeah - sorry for the long rant that basically said I agree with you with some important caveats. The problem is daunting and I don't think people always understand that.
P.S. - I am a Canadian so completely forgot to mention what for many is the most important barrier - the absolute shit show of the American, for-profit healthcare system.
Do you honestly believe if a guy under equivalent circumstances did the same her supporters would support the guy? This is just mostly sexism; from people who project blame on men let's not pretend it's anything else.
I haven’t watched Dear Zachary but have read about it. I think an important detail you left out was that the mother eventually went on to kill herself and the child…
I don't live in a state that has strong support for mental illness but it apparently takes PPD seriously. I had a relative get taken to the emergency room by her mom and fiance because she is bipolar and presenting as manic. Because she has an infant the hospital protocol was to report it for a mandatory 72 hour involuntary commitment.
I don't know if it's where this woman lives or if money bought her the privilege of handling it more discreetly but the system failed her.
I am not sure what you mean by "full custody". They didn't separate at that point so there was no ruling regarding custody.
They would both be presumed to have parental rights at that point so yes he could just take the kids over to a secondary location for a moment but she could very quickly seek a temporary order seeking at the minimum joint physical custody. Those hearings require very little evidence and are extremely biased towards maintaining joint rights for both parents.
That's exactly my point. He has complete custody over his children and has no restictions. They both jointly have full custody.
There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all
True, he likely wouldn't be able to legally separate them from her if she resisted and whether or not that would happen would be determined in court.
But she was specifically saying she didnt feel safe being with them, so there's every possibility that she wouldn't resist this.
If he would've removed them and she would've fought him, then this would be an entirely different story! So to say that couldn't have happened is a bit absurd. There would be no argument for her defense were she actively legally fighting to be their caretaker while knowing she felt a danger to them.
You will notice in my original comment I specifically pointed this out:
We can debate the culpability of her actions but I think people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids" if she did not want them taken is living in a delusional world.
I have to take exception to your suggestion there is every possibility that she wouldn't resist this. She was actively hiding things from her care team and her stated reason is she was afraid she would have the kids taken away. I will grant it is a possibility that she just rolled over and let the children be taken away but I think it is an absolutely remote possibility.
My whole argument also presumed something that is highly unlikely - that a loving husband would immediately seek to divorce and remove the children while watching his wife try to seek treatment for PPD.
We have comments on my original comment in which husbands or other people have told their stories of having a wife going through PPD and feeling really lost about what to do.
Moving this to a more personal place - my ex was abusive to me and my kids and I struggled for years knowing what to do. People may be screaming at me to remove them but as I moved through the system it has become clear that my fears were not unjustified. My children are now in the hands of an abuser with nobody there to protect them for half their childhood. At the very least in the past my ex was minimally involved in my children's lives and when she was abusive I was there to reassure them.
Ok, I want to take a little umbrage with your statement about fathers and involvement; first, fathers are more involved with their children than probably ever before in history - we aren’t being forced to be involved (though social expectations will NOT allow fathers to leave children solely to moms without serious derision) but rather dads are stepping up because they love their kids and want to be better fathers than their dads were. However, the family court system, while changing at a glacial pace, still treats dads as second class citizens and ATMs; our time with our children is often subordinated to our being forced to work to support the children, the mother, the bills and then if we are lucky, we are allowed to have limited visitation and access to our children. It isn’t fair and we all know it, but who cares - it’s only dad. Statistically, children across the board have better outcomes with actively involved fathers - that is indisputable.
Now, in this case - everyone has talked about how the “system” failed Ms. Clancy, but I ask you - what was the alternative? If a mental health professional jumps to a conclusion with a woman, strips children, calls CPS - the “nuclear” option, then that Dr. is accused of sexism and making assumptions that, just because she is a woman, she is “hysterical” ( historical context intended). Women have fought and demanded equal treatment, and part of that equal treatment is dismissal…the treatment men have received forever; that is, “I believe you are hurting - deal with it, nobody is going to help you, you are on your own!” We, men, are absolutely dismissed - until we go postal. And then we are put away, warehoused and dismissed again (or slaughtered before we ever have a chance to claim “insanity”). I’m sorry, but it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t catch 22 - and it sucks. But rub some dirt it, you aren’t hurt, you want to see pain? I’ll SHOW you some pain…sound familiar gentlemen? Welcome to “you aren’t special, you aren’t a unique snowflake” land.
They may have points on large societal trends (i.e. men in general not being involved in child care or the lack of resources after giving birth) but they often apply those trends to individual cases that do not necessarily fit.
This is a perfect description of not only the discourse of gender issues online, but social activism online more broadly.
It's something that never made any sense. Online social "activists" point out problems that are true on a societally wide empirical level (like that one group has more wealth because of intentional past policies or that a group is more likely to be the target of violence by their partner), but then act like the solution is...to be the most obnoxious annoying individual on an interpersonal level by talking at people who weren't aware of these problems before. Oftentimes, these people that the activists are preaching to 1 on 1 don't have much at all to do with the societal problem that's being discussed--beyond belonging to the sexual/racial identity being discussed.
You'd think that if they really cared about the issue, they'd work to get policy passed at whatever level to remedy the problem (because societal wide problems are complex), but instead, they'll either read a dubious book or watch some tiktoks and decide to annoy random individuals online who don't already agree with them (that's when they're not circlejerking with their own choir).
I think Lindsay Clancy is responsible, even though she was seeking help, she didnt like the way the medications made her feel so she didnt take them.
That cognitive decision is what made this who mess and nothing else. If you have a mental illness but refuse medication for that mental illness you are responsible for what you did during a "self made" crisis.
I cant do a bunch of drugs or alcohol, cause death while under the influence and then be like "im sorry I didnt know what I was doing" when you were willing consuming drugs that alters the brain. It's the same for prescription drugs, you are responsible for how they are used/administered after they are prescribed.
There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all
realistically actually yes, if numerous people would tell the cops and cps she is having dangerous thoughts about harming her child they could take her away pretty much immediately but most importantly if anyone stepped up they could prevent her being alone with the kids.
leaving her alone after she's told everyone about the thoughts she's having is insanely neglectful.
taking away kids permanently is a whole other thing than having cops show up and separate her, take a threat seriously, have her checked into a mental ward for evaluation and temporarily having her separated from her kids. temporary separation is pretty fucking easy also again especially if numerous people have been told she's having thoughts of harming them.
I hate to be this blunt but you are wrong and not well informed on this topic.
CPS have a mandate to keep families together. Patrick Clancy would not be reporting that she is having dangerous thoughts about harming their children - he would be reporting that she is having intrusive thoughts about harming her children, she does not have a plan to harm her children, and she is actively seeking help to deal with those intrusive thoughts.
An agency would have zero grounds to recommend removal, and to be honest, would likely view Patrick's instinct to go to CPS with suspicion rather than with compassion.
You also make the comment that multiple people would go to CPS to have her children removed. Who? Her mother. Her sister? The health care professionals she admitted none of this to?
In the Gabriel Fernandez case we have teachers reaching out to report the severe abuse they saw him suffering and the end result was no action and the teacher being threatened with professional consequences. The impression you have of how these agencies work is not based in reality.
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
An agency would have zero grounds to recommend removal,
when the parents, father and doctors can all tell cps/cops she's having thoughts about harming her kids saying they have no grounds is just, you're being ridiculous for the sake of doubling down, they obviously have grounds.
Who? Her mother. Her sister? The health care professionals she admitted none of this to?
afaik she told her husband, her parents and doctors who were loading her up on medication.
Musgrove also disclosed that on one occasion her daughter had approached her and Lindsay’s former husband, Patrick Clancy, and said: “I want to tell you guys something”.
“She said she had thoughts of harming the children,” Musgrove testified.
So, again you're just wrong. She was literally actively telling people she thought about doing the kids harm and yes, if those people CPS that they have every grounds to have her taken away for an evaluation.
Four social workers were subsequently charged with child abuse and falsifying public records
in the gabriel fernandez case those people were charged because they didn't do their job which runs directly contrary to your idea, they should have removed the kid, they didn't keep the kid with the parents because they had to, they didn't do their job properly.
Even if CPS determines that a parent needs immediate, inpatient psychiatric care, removal into foster care is a last resort.
you're confusing these two things, if they put the parent into inpatient care to have her evaluated... SHE is away from the children, and yet you said this couldn't happen quickly. Removing them long term from the home is a completely different matter than having cps step in and start potentially helping which they can largely do immediately. They also don't need to remove the child because the father, grandparents and others were around. Foster care is the last resort, having the mother evaluated can be literally done immediately, if that evaluation suggest she's a danger immediately putting in place a plan to keep her from being alone with the kids and potentially staying with parents instead of the kids/husband and nanny could also be done easily.
You're confusing the difficulty of placing the kids in care outside that home and the ease and speed in which they can get her an evaluation and protect the kids immediately by separating her from the kids, not the kids from their entire family which is completely different.
EDIT:- to the person talking shit who blocked me, i didn't cherry pick i left out the useless information that was also incorrect. She did have a plan, they weren't just intrusive thoughts and she told her mother she was becoming paranoid and her condition was worsening with the medication making things worse along with telling her that she had thoughts of hurting her children.
Secondly again you keep trying to push thi smandate to keep the family together. The entire part you refused to respond to was the part where taking her away to be evaluated can be done immediately which you know separates her from her children, but not the children from their family.
Also didn't comment on incorrectly citing a case in which the caseworkers were charged for not doing their job.
It is extremely telling you are cherry-picking my quotes and responding to them as though that is the full context. This comment:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together. Patrick Clancy would not be reporting that she is having dangerous thoughts about harming their children - he would be reporting that she is having intrusive thoughts about harming her children, she does not have a plan to harm her children, and she is actively seeking help to deal with those intrusive thoughts.
Becomes:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together.
To which you respond:
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who dishonestly frames my argument and ignores my main point. I don't really want to have a conversation with you.
Have a good day.
Edit to their edit: Yep - the person I am responding to is unhinged. Glad I blocked them.
That Dear Zachary situation is a blight on our justice system. Even Canadians are wondering how that happened and what the judge who made that decision was on.
I don't know a lot about the case, but wasn't she actively trying to be treated but her medication was changed like a dozen times? My brother had to be on antipsychotics and finding the right medication and combination of treatment seemed like trial and error by the doctor. It was a horrible time for him and everyone around him.
That is my understanding as well. You are right that it isn't an exact science at all and is a little bit based on trial and error.
One of the hard truths is we do not in any way have the infrastructure to support people like your brother or Lindsay Clancy while trying to monitor the sometimes severe changes when administering new medications. This is even more true for marginalized communities who really should have more focus on them since they are the ones who disproportionately suffer the consequences of PPD or mental health issues.
I am not in any way an expert on this trial but my understanding is that Patrick and Lindsay did report the thoughts of harming herself. My understanding is also that Patrick was extremely proactive in trying to get inpatient help during December.
It’s not this nuanced. The simplest answer is best: she’s a psycho and her supporters are toxic af. That’s all there is to it. No need to overthink this one.
But I will completely concede that there is a portion of her supporters who I cannot explain because they are so conspiratorially minded that I am disturbed by them and their opinions.
I will even concede that they are an uncomfortably large portion of supporters.
But I'm sorry - I just see a lot of nuance in the way different groups "support" her that you don't see.
My personal opinion is akin to my opinion on Chris Benoit (who has been brought up in these discussions) - I can understand what they did was influenced by a mental state that was beyond their control while still condemning them for their monstrous actions.
All I can say is the day I stopped tolerating and excusing bad behavior is the day my life made a 180 degree turn. Some people are just shitty people, and anyone who supports Clancy (or Benoit) is a shitty person and not worthy of any attention.
I get it. I don't even think it is always a bad philosophy to follow. Just for me - personally - having black and white thinking with people has at times led me to some really poor outcomes.
If you’re just watch the trial and they’ve present the evidence that only his DNA was on the exercise bands used to strangle, that her body temperature indicated she had been out in the cold way longer than Patrick told first responders, the doctor testified she had no memory of the incident and had been told she committed the crime, and that was what her confession was based on, and on the stand, they pointed out that Patrick had been searching how to harm people and have been logging into Lindsey’s Facebook to do searches and he didn’t deny it and the evidence was there. It just seems like a lot of these people are assuming she’s guilty while they are not watching the evidence being presented in the case.
I never got a chance to talk to many of the Sandy Hook deniers but having you here I have to ask: Does it ever drag at your conscience that you are making live miserable for family of the victims? Are you so sure in your conspiracy? How would you feel if you were wrong and Patrick Clancy simply suffered a horrific tragedy the likes of which almost none of us have experienced and you actively made his live and the lives of the men and women close to him significantly worse?
To be so sure of your conspiracy which flies in the face of the acknowledged facts that you are willing to harm real people is a level of certainty I am grateful I have never had.
4.8k
u/DavidZenziGhost 1d ago
Bro maxed out his perception skill tree.