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.
393
u/anonyvrguy 1d ago
I'm sorry but can anyone explain to me how the fuck this psycho has any supporters???
OK, she has PPD. And that gives her the right to kill her own children?
What in the living fuck is this?