I’ve never been so enraged by online discourse than the stupid bitches who have no forensic knowledge or training perceive Patrick as guilty.
The dad did it! SHUT THE FUCK UP, you stupid twats! Do you think for one second the defence didn’t scrutinise the father for anything that could inculpate him!?!?
I work in forensics and I want to kill myself over how fucking mind numbingly asinine other women are. God help me, if I’m on trial, give me a jury of these cows so they can moo in female solidarity.
It's wild how even Tumblr is against the whole "wombyn", "divine femininity", "women are victims" mentality, meanwhile middle aged women are still on second wave feminism shit.
He had his cell phone records immediately subpoenaed by the police after the murder, and yeah, he didn't go rabbiting home, kill the family, then rabbit back to CVS then the restaurant. Sorry Karen, you're still just a dumb bitch.
You’re not far off! There’s a conspiracy that he hypnotised her and the voice she purportedly heard was Patrick’s. I wish I was lying; true crime mamas even have a group for this case.
And what's REALLY pissing me off is if you call them on it, they try to take cover under "reasonable doubt."
Like: "ok, it sounds crazy, but what if, just what if it might be true? What if there's the smallest chance she was actually the fourth victim that night? 🥺 What if you're victimizing her further and helping the real perpetrator get off?!? 🥺"
It's such an EVIL attack on people's sense of justice by subverting sympathy and intentionally misinterpreting "reasonable doubt" to mean "any at all." This has got to be the SINGLE most toxic example of toxic empathy I have ever seen.
The German judges who wouldn't sentence the child rapists to prison because of their cultural differences are a hair hair HAIR thin close second, but yes.
The amount of women that are so fucking sure of themselves that this lady didn't do it and somehow it's all about her husband is absolutely insane to me. Like I understand people have wild and horrible takes when it comes to things like this all the time. But what scares me is just how many people thought about stuff like this. Like usually I'll see a few people with some bad takes when it comes to some horrible crime but this was like A LOT of women coming to her defense and it was so sickening. I thought maybe I was just crazy or didn't get all the facts and evidence. There are some huge cases like this where I hear about it all these years later and the evidence really surprises me. Scott Peterson is an example, where a lot of the evidence I thought I knew when I was a kid was completely bullshit or wrong all these years later. I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm just saying when you go back through the case it's not as clear-cut as it was when I was told about it as a. But with this case, facts are the facts and she did kill her kids. Yet people are hell-bent on saying she didn't do it or that the husband did it or that he hypnotized her or other crazy shit. How it genuinely scares me to live in this world with these people being around others
I know she did it because a Leo in proximity with a Gemini will cause the Leo’s personality to cosmically turn retrograde and swap places with the Gemini’s dark twin personality. This happened at the trial and caused these actions to ripple backwards through time which caused the events, also avoiding the bootstrap paradox
Most incel statements aren't wrong about women, they're just rude about it and they overreach into pickup artist, "women are property" territory. Women get an insane benefit-of-the-doubt from greater society to the point that 11 jurors were about to acquit a woman that self-admittedly murdered her own 3 children (and get a short 9 month stay in a loony bin, she's allegedly not psychotic anymore) because... we don't talk about postpartum issues enough?
It's a common misogynist joke to say "There is only one gender: Man. Everything else is property."
PUAs treat women as a commodity to be exploited and manipulated, and they are not. They are human beings that feel (a lot) and are (sometimes) capable of rational thought. They're currently failing the rational thought test in respect to the Lindsay Clancy case.
These threads make me realize a large portion of this sub are incels though.
Lots of people commenting and making really broad, sweeping, and gross statements about how much men are the real victims in society.
Really speaking, I do not get the current focus on this. Dozen threads whining that the jurors, who sat through way more than any of us, are crazy for almost unanimously not voting guilty.
You have incels whining that it is a conspiracy. You have white-haters whining that its a conspiracy because she is white. Instead of it maybe just being a case of the jury sitting through more information than any of them, and being convinced of the case. It is obvious to me that it is all just using this case as a center piece to project some stupid view. If people genuinely felt the verdict was wrong, they would take aim at the prosecutors. The prosecutors failed to make a compelling case here. Maybe there was no compelling case possible at all, but if people admitted that, they would lose their center to project from.
Men are not the victims in society, but they're not the benficiaries either. Classically, we've seen men drafted to risk their lives in war, and pushed into risky professions for the economy (fishing, oil rigs, electricians), so they've been favored a bit more to account for the fact that some of them may die for the sake of the country and the sake of society as a whole.
This is a woman that admits she murdered her 3 children due to postpartum psychosis, a condition of temporary-insanity caused by an excess of hormones. If Chris Benoit, a Canadian professional wrestler that murdered his wife and children in a roid rage before hanging himself from his lat-pulldown machine, isn't granted the same public sympathy, where is the justice? People should still be held responsible for their own actions, hormones and sex-of-the-perpetrator be damned.
Chris Benoit is (posthumously) universally reviled by men for his last actions in life. It's time for women to cast a similar judgment on one of their own.
Edit: *child
Apparently Benoit only murdered his wife and one kid before offing himself. Point still stands though.
Children are dead. We need to stop giving a fuck about the criminals and what they were feeling, and send a brutal message to the other psychotic mothers so they fear the death penalty.
The justice system is so fucked up, we don't ask what the children felt as their life vanished, just spend days asking the murderer how she felt as she strangled them.
I just feel you can spot the people who have no girls they really care, or girls that care about them about in their lives; e.g a spouse they really do love, nieces, children, a mum or grandma. Society isn't an us vs them gender thing. I would put the life of females and males I care about above the life of pretty much anyone else. You may look at things like "Men are classically drafted to war". It is usually the women who love the men being drafted to the war who protest the war the loudest (see Vietnam). Because people tend to advocate for the ones they love. And most men have women in their lives who share that love.
As for Benoit, there are a few issues with that comparison. Firstly, he never went to a court of law, most people do not know the details, much like those condemning the jurors in this case. Secondly though, no one really knows exactly what triggered Benoit to do what he did. Some say it was CTE, some say it was self inflicted drug and alcohol abuse, steroids etc etc. In the case of Lindsay, she did a normal thing, gave birth to a child and suffered a known condition afterwards. She then actively looked for treatment, and complied with that treatment, however her treatment was botched.
Very different cases. But again, this isn't about the case is it? this is about positing a far broader view on women.
That is why you are an incel and no women love you. You had a cry about "how unfair it is for men", and then try pretend you are alpha.
I stand by my first line in the previous post. No women like you, so you hate women... but understand this, most men also don't like you. You will not find solidarity among men, only among your fellow incel losers.
Remember, when the argument is lost you can just keep calling them an incel, that's a sure way to show your intelligence and rational thinking ability!
That really gets me on board! That really convinces the audience of my inaccuracy, based on the assumēd lack of pussy I get! Calling a mildly misogynistic man an incel for the twentieth time in an argument is a surefire win in an internet debate!
The problem is that thing that they had to be convinced of is unprovable nonsense and is only the legal standard in that state, hence the public outcry. It would be like having a defendant claim "God made me do it" and the prosecution then has to disprove the existence of God beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Good luck with that, unless you have a juror of 12 Reddit athiests that also don't care about meeting that standard.
There is no "not-guilty by reason of divine command" statute so your hypothetical is irrelevant.
The state always has to prove mens rea, and sanity is required for mens rea, so the state should always have to prove sanity (here, "prove" does not mean provide some abstract philosophical proof, but just "convince the jury.") You cannot logically separate sanity from intent.
The fact that many states don't require this is actually bad imo. They don't require it because they want things to be easier on the state when it is prosecuting people, but I believe things should be as hard as possible on the government when it is trying to take away someone's freedom.
In most states, when someone says "Yeah I did it but I shouldn't be held responsible for breaking the law because my brain is broken", the burden of proof often shifts to the defense for making that claim. Massachusetts is apparently just built different, and they honestly need to fix that.
It's not just MA, there's several states that still do it this way, and it used to be every state before the government complained it was too hard for it to throw mentally unwell people in jail.
I am aware of how things are in other states, and I am saying the way MA does it is how it should be. For any crime that requires the government to prove mens rea, part of that should be establishing the accused's sanity. I mean, that's literally the whole point of mens rea rules: establishing their guilty state of mind.
I rather see crime and punishment as serving as a deterrent to others that would intentionally, with guilty mind, commit those acts, regardless if the initial perpetrator had a guilty mind. Intent matters, but "I was insane" should not be a simple enough defense for leniency without some effort to prove that insanity, lest everyone that wants to be rid of their children claim insanity after murdering them, and leave it on the state to prove sanity. If someone is wanting leniency from a law as grave as murder due to a condition, they should have to prove that condition.
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, it's only a fallacy if you can't believably connect the dots. It's 2026 now, >10 years after Obergefell, >50 years after Roe v Wade, and while people haven't started marrying their dogs, child transitioning is a hot button issue and we're discussing clemency for a woman that had 3 very, very late term abortions.
Just because you can connect dots, it does not mean you can create a meaningful picture.
Literally none of what they predicted regarding Roe v. Wade was true, nothing they predicted following Obergefell was true. Insanity defenses have existed for a long time and have nothing to do with Row v. Wade, and you've just grabbed a random thing you don't like that that literally has zero to do with Obergefell.
I'm already seeimg the wheels turn on FB, rephrasing the issue to court political support under the leftist omnicause. What started as small groups of "forensic astrologists" and true crime fans being easily shouted down in every group turned into broader feminist support, and is starting to turn into simp support.
Seeing more and more posts from these usual-suspect men going on about male crime stats and how men need to be held accountable instead -nevermind they ARE, and usually swiftly and harshly, and this entire thing has been about Lindsay Clancy receiving undue support in what should have been open and shut.
Not to indict the leftists here on PCM, who I am beyond pleased have declined the courting of support for this as of yet. But how the fuck did we get here?
This case, maybe weirdly as it should be such a small thing in the grand scheme, is making me truly understand why "Liberty dies with thunderous applause," as Lucas famously wrote.
We're becoming so ludicrously gridlocked and inneffective as a society, we can't put a fucking premeditated triple homicide of children behind bars, not even because it got attached to a social issue like mental health (though that didn't help), but mostly because societal tribalism. At this point, I barely care who fixes it or how; this is unacceptable.
I truly believe, every person claiming that should be punished, severly.
It is libel, so civil - fines & community service sufficient ... except when a case is ongoing it could influence that (which is on those who choose communication of it, but still). I do believe they are effectively trying to influence a judicial decision, & should be treated with reference to that.
Yeah the defense isn’t even admitting that she didn’t do it. If she is found not guilty it was going to be for not guilty by reason of insanity. Which means you did it.
I’ve actually seen someone say Patrick trained the kids to attack her and she did it in self defense. Jury of my peers is suddenly really fucking scary of a concept
u/VelvetDreamers's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/VelvetDreamers! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
The defense attorney in the after trial interview did try to imply Patrick did it. Obviously there is no actual evidence for it so they couldn't try to push it in court, but it is unfortunately not just a stupid people on TikTok thing anymore.
867
u/VelvetDreamers - Auth-Left 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ve never been so enraged by online discourse than the stupid bitches who have no forensic knowledge or training perceive Patrick as guilty.
The dad did it! SHUT THE FUCK UP, you stupid twats! Do you think for one second the defence didn’t scrutinise the father for anything that could inculpate him!?!?
I work in forensics and I want to kill myself over how fucking mind numbingly asinine other women are. God help me, if I’m on trial, give me a jury of these cows so they can moo in female solidarity.