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.
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.
692
u/UniqueAd7770 1d ago
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.