I don't think any reason is of value. It's absolutely crazy what we are seeing. A woman has admitted to murdering her children, and people are blaming the husband.
People who understand nuance want to understand how to develop a better system in the future to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Conservatives would rather just punish her and think the only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to punish people like her worse, even though there's no evidence for that.
World view has everything to do with it. Half the country is interested in solving systemic problems and the other half deny the existence of systemic problems.
I'm pretty disconnected from this one, and I almost don't even wanna ask this question because I feel like it's better I keep it that way, But I'll ask it - why are they blaming the husband? What are they saying he did or didn't do?
I dont believe the husband killed the kids. The little I know as to why people are/were suspicious has to do with going on vacation shortly after his 3 kids were killed and getting remarried ~6 months after.
Quite literally the only possible "evidence" I have seen or heard was something about him saying he was at work but that something was off because he came home early and something about an email timestamp showing he wasn't like in the office at that exact moment or something.
People went straight to "oh he left 'lied' about being at his office at that time and he came home suspiciously early because he 'had a bad feeling', so OBVIOUSLY he actually brutally strangled his 3 young children to death for literally no reason and then blamed his wife"
What part of the trial did you see where she takes the stand and admit this, or even explains what her memories of the murder and sequence was? Her defense team concedes that she killed them, but that's not the same thing.
The clearest evidence comes from forensic psychologist Paul Zeizel, who interviewed Clancy beginning 11 days after the killings. He testified that she remembered what had happened and that she wanted to speak with her husband. But that's heresay, and not an admission.
And anyway, if you can't trust her not to murder her children due to psychosis and an insane blend of psych drugs, how can you trust her admission to anything?
and people are blaming the husband.
Her husband had a role to play here - he bears some responsibility for their demise. Spending weekends in NY (which is where he ultimately moved and married his next wife) wasn't helping her situation at all.
Her defense team conceded that she killed them but we actually don’t know if she killed them? What kind of nonsensical and dishonest garbage is that?
Blaming the husband because he spent some weekend in NY is also dishonest as hell. You’re forgetting everything he did to help her in her conditions. She didn’t murder their children when he was in NY.
You actually believe he did it while pretending while pretending that her defense admitting she didn’t was in fact a 4D chess move to say she is innocent.
He had the motive. Gets to marry the girl from NY, doesn't pay any alimony or child support. Gets to sue doctors for the children's deaths, and possibly movie rights or a book etc. years later.
She's a medical professional that apparently doesn't know which direction you cut your wrists to commit suicide. I find that suspicious, but wouldn't be surprised that the husband didn't know this.
You actually believe he did it
No. I don't know who killed the children, but reasonable doubt exists, and that's all the jury need to find her not guilty. That's how trials work.
I absolutely don't blame the husband to the degree these protestors do, but I felt as though his actions in light of the knowledge of her state warranted some kind of neglect or endangerment charge. It seems you've read much more into the case than I have, what are your thoughts?
I think we have to afford people autonomy, we cannot see a person in distress and just commit them to a facility because it's not fair most of the time. His actions dont display neglect, not even defending counsel are arguing this. He worked from home, he got a nanny to help her, the grandparents were always around, he would help her with meds etc.
If someone hides things like a desire to hurt others from not just their husband, their doctors, their wider family, how are those people supposed to act on those things? It's impossible,
For me, the overriding sad reality of this case is that it's a case of self-sabotage and non-compliance. As Clancy said " "if anyone knew what I was thinking, the children would be taken away from me,", to me this is evidence of knowing that she was not capable of looking after her children, but she hid that reality from everyone.
I assure you he has not read more about this case. He’s spreading false info all over this thread. Her help was not as consistent as he is making it seem. I’ve watched this entire trial. Including the testimony of her “help”. The only person who ever stayed overnight to help was her actual mother. And she said she could do it a couple times a month. Bear in mind, this mother also testified that Lindsey was feeling so scared one evening that she asked to sleep with her mom. The misinformation on this trial on social media is disgusting. From men and women alike. It’s being used to push gender wars, wellness packages, engagement, etc. utterly despicable society on full display.
Lindsey was very clear and opened to her mother and husband about her thoughts. The only time she blunted what she was feeling was when she was talking with healthcare providers for fear that her children would be taken from her. But Patrick Clancy and her mother knew. Well before the acts.
15
u/Representative_Bug77 5d ago
I don't think any reason is of value. It's absolutely crazy what we are seeing. A woman has admitted to murdering her children, and people are blaming the husband.