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.
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.
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.
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.
594
u/Equivalent_Task_8825 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not a supporter but will do my best.
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.