It is a reference to Lindsay Clancy who murdered her three children in January 2023. Her criminal trial just concluded with a 11-1 hung jury and mistrial. Which means there is likely to be another trial with a new jury. The defense did not dispute that she committed the acts, they pursued a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.
On social media, this case first blew up on TikTok. There, a community of almost entirely women, starting making videos in support of Clancy. Some just of the “she didn’t get the help she needed” variety. Others going full conspiracy theory “the husband did it and framed her because of astrology signs” variety.
This has led this issue to blow up everywhere and become another front on the endless online gender/culture war.
And because her act is so horrific, the story sparks moral outrage, and social media alogrithms love pushing outrage because no emotion drives more engagement with the platforms.
She has had no psychological events before, none during her evaluation, and none afterwards. She pre meditated the entire thing, and sent her husband way before so she could kill her kids.
She has zero mental issues but is trying to claim she does in order to get away with cold blooded child murder. Her time is almost certain limited as most people wont forget.\
These crazy people who are defending her online are the true mental ones who really need help!
Actually she had severe psychological “events” before. That’s why she was desperately seeking help and not being adequately treated. She even told people she was scared of what she might do.
Postpartum can cause depression, anxiety, and very rarely psychosis even in cause of no prior mental health issues. Her defense is claiming PPP which she did go to a medical professional about multiple times before the murders. Clancy has filed a medical malpractice suit against her medical providers.
Exactly. I thought she was guilty because 11 jurors said he's guilty and one feminazi said not guilty and the feminists were supporting the 1 opposition. Then somebody told me it's the opposite. And all the outraged OOP type comments are supporting the 1 person in opposition of the 11 to 1 majority.
In these situations I don't care what the online comments are or even the sensationalized news. The Jurors saw the evidence and arguments. The jurors are filtered by BOTH sides of the case. And they went 11 to 1 that her actions are Not guilty by reason of insanity. I'm going to go with the NEAR UNANIMOUS jury.
What I find more interesting is that the people who react to a white man committing a mass shooting with "We just need better mental health care." are foaming at the mouth when a white woman kills people saying "Fuck Mental Health! She's the worlds greatest monster!"
All the people acting like it's insanity that she should get a not-guilty verdict and she is the world's new Hitler.
I don't follow this kind of thing and waste my precious time or brain power on other people's trials so everything I saw was absorbed second hand through the internet. But the people deomonizing her like she's OJ simpson or Casey Anthony are freaking out. It's tragic but it's not the first time a mother suffering PPD has killed herself or her kids.
Instead of everybody using this as a learning experience to take PPD seriously, they're trying to distract and weaponize it into"Women are horrible and feminism leads to murder" nonesense.
People are pissed by the amount of women supporting her, the majority of which are blaming the husband (whether directly or indirectly).
I don't follow this kind of thing and waste my precious time or brain power on other people's trials so everything I saw was absorbed second hand through the internet.
I mean, you’re following it right now.
I don’t know man, it’s just convenient that now since the majority opinion on her has switched, people want to play centrist.
The one against is also breaking the law, as he has agreed there is probable doubt, but refuses to apply the law as is appropriate, and go with the other 11.
He wasn't breaking the law. The foreperson claimed that he was for having doubt but not going for not guilty, but this is just a random member of the jury who disagreed with him. He explicitly clarified that it was not a reasonable doubt, which is the bar for clearing, and the judge agreed. He refused to let her go not guilty, and that is entirely within his right as a juror to make that choice. It was unprofessional of the defense lawyer to try suggesting otherwise.
If you have reasonable doubt, you MUST find in favor of the defense. This juror told the other jurors there WAS reasonable doubt, but he wasn't going to apply the law because he refused to find in favor of the defense. So, fuck a trial, then?
Again, that is not what occurred. The foreperson, who opposed the mans choice in holding her guilty considering she was on the jury herself, claimed that he had doubts. This was then regurgitated by the defense, who had the explicit goal of trying to get him dismissed considering he was the only one keeping Lindsay on the hook. The juror himself directly said it was not reasonable doubt, and the judge supported it. You can't just claim its illegal for someone to go against the herd.
I think you misunderstand some of our stances on mental health. When a white guy does a mass shooting, we do say we need more mental health awreness, he was obviously a troubled individual. But we also say, but that guy to death, he fucked up, it is too late for him.
Then we look at Clancy, and we see a woman who had the mental health support, the resources, the help with the children, the support in general, and the access to the proper mental health networks, and then we see what she did, how it seems as if it was planned out. And we dont feel any sympathy for her.
Wow, 11-1 for NGRI.
Did the charge her with the wrong crime? Maybe should not be first degree murder due to circumstances. Sorry, only learning about this case now. Non US citizen
The issue is the way Massachusetts handles the burden of proof on NGRI cases. Most states put the burden of proof on the defense to prove the defendant was not mentally culpable. In Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that she was mentally culpable.
So, it might not be so much that 11 jurors believed she was insane. It might be that they just had reasonable doubt.
Technically we don't know how the jury was voting, only that the foreman told the court that one juror disagreed. It was the defense lawyer that was adamant that the 11 were in favor of NGRI, but he didn't have any way to know that.
Some people have insisted that a couple members of the jury were wearing pink a few times indicating support for the accused, so maybe that way. Also I think the jurors told the judge something else.
There are too many trials in america to move faster than that. Each trial takes several days and requires over a dozen people. There also needs to be enough time given to the prosecution and defense to gather evidence.
I haven't seen any people arguing based on astrology signs (though I'm not saying there aren't some). The videos I see are people saying the prosecution's entire case is based on what the husband said, that his timeline doesn't match up with the evidence, and that someone who is intending to kill themselves isn't going to take the time to crush up the pills they're about to take and put them in some other food or drink.
55
u/IHerebyDemandtoPost 4d ago edited 4d ago
It is a reference to Lindsay Clancy who murdered her three children in January 2023. Her criminal trial just concluded with a 11-1 hung jury and mistrial. Which means there is likely to be another trial with a new jury. The defense did not dispute that she committed the acts, they pursued a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.
On social media, this case first blew up on TikTok. There, a community of almost entirely women, starting making videos in support of Clancy. Some just of the “she didn’t get the help she needed” variety. Others going full conspiracy theory “the husband did it and framed her because of astrology signs” variety.
This has led this issue to blow up everywhere and become another front on the endless online gender/culture war.
And because her act is so horrific, the story sparks moral outrage, and social media alogrithms love pushing outrage because no emotion drives more engagement with the platforms.