Hundreds of Lindsay Clancy supporters, many wearing pink clothing emblazoned with phrases such as “Believe,” “She Needed Help” and “Peace For Lindsay,” gathered Thursday outside the courthouse where she is on trial in the killings of her three children.
Several of the 300 women, and a few men, said Clancy’s story resonated with them and that they wanted to raise awareness about how the mental health system treats women. Clancy’s lawyer does not dispute that she killed the children, but says she should not be held criminally responsible because she was mentally ill.
This is reminiscent of the guy who killed his kid by leaving him in a hot car and then killed himself due to grief. She will never escape the memory of what she did because the trial will highlight the entire thing. The media has painted her as a monster. Peace will never be in her life again as she has to live with what she did, regardless of the trial outcome. She will try suicide again.
I mean, it’s a little different. In this case she is demonstrably mentally ill with postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder. Being committed is probably the best thing that can happen to her, so that hopefully she can get treatment. She literally was not sane when she did it and wasn’t mentally capable of understanding her actions during it.
In the father’s case, the dude was a neglectful layabout who routinely left the kids in the car so he could play fuckin video games without them annoying him. His wife had begged him repeatedly to stop leaving them in the car.
From what I’ve heard, evidence has come out that suggests she might not have done it after all. Starting to look like there’s a chance the husband did it and set her up to take the fall.
Do you have a reputable source for this statement?
It’s almost all from the husband’s testimony and her lawyer’s questioning of him. Basically, there are a whole lot of things he said that don’t add up with established facts.
Has a respected source like the Guardian or the Boston Globe (this case is in Massachusetts, no?) done any reporting on this given the severity of the implications? Because if he did it, then his testimony is obviously incorrect, and if he didn’t do it, then he was a first hand? witness and first hand accounts have traditionally been seen as unreliable.
From what I have seen, main stream news has really been running with the story that she did it. There are a few that have touched on the fact that there are people who think the husband did it. But most news sources haven’t really reported on it. The claims I’ve seen that he did it are from people watching the trial themselves and coming to that conclusion based on what came up through hours and hours of questioning. I appreciate that you are asking for a source, but there’s really not a lot from reporters right now. The source is the like 5-6 hour questioning of the ex husband.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-patrick-clancy-conspiracy-theories-are-rooted-in-the-harsh-realities-of-motherhood/
Seems like at best he’s a bad husband and father.