People on the internet (I mean: men) are accusing women of being crazy and paranoid in response to the trial of Lindsey Clancy. Nearly every post about the trial has at least one comment from a man saying a variation of: I can't believe women are defending a woman strangling her 3 children!
Obviously, no one is defending the act of strangling children. And the men making those comments, men who have lived far too long beyond their evolved-to-die-by date and who have no concept of how to live in a community, are just trying to be cruel.
From what I’ve seen, the vast majority of conversations among women regarding this case, are compassionate, clear-headed, curious and open-minded. Let me quickly explain how and why the way women are responding to this case is completely logical and rational, and not at all crazy or paranoid.
Before I jump in, I should clarify: I’m not following the case closely at all—certainly not close enough to have picked a ‘team’. I’ve watched no footage of the trial. I have no interest in true crime stories or podcasts. It’s not my thing. What I have been watching, is the response to the trial, and the widespread rolling-of-eyes at the women who are talking about it.
Let’s start with this. Every person watching the trial started with the same premise. The media reported that Lindsey Clancy was on trial for killing her 3 children while dealing with symptoms of postpartum mental illness. As the trial began, I didn’t see a single person questioning that premise or doubting that premise. That was what was reported as fact, and people seemed to accept it as fact.
It was approached as a heartbreaking story of 3 very young children, killed by an otherwise loving mom who was out of her mind. For many people old enough to remember (including myself), it immediately brought to mind the last major news story of an overwhelmed and mentally ill mother: Andrea Yates. She is a Texas woman who drowned her five children in a bathtub twenty-five years ago in 2001. There was nothing but sadness back then for all affected by the Yates case, and as the current trial was announced, I saw similar sadness for the Clancy family.
My point is that I know of no one who went into this trail doubting the story we’d been told by the media. No one went into this actively looking for excuses to change their mind or question the story.
These are just rough estimates, but about ten years ago, most white people (and anyone considering themself a “model minority”) generally believed law enforcement was on the up-and-up. Black people, and other minority populations, knew better. By 2020, with extensive reporting on the killing of George Floyd, trust in law enforcement was seriously damaged, even for those who had previously trusted the police. In 2026, that trust is long gone for all but a few people.
It’s a combination of horrific instances of injustice, like police going to the wrong apartment and killing Breonna Taylor while she was in her bed, unnecessary ICE raids that are aggressive for no reason, law enforcement covering their faces and refusing to share their identities or show their credentials, police officers protecting nazis and white supremacists and arresting the people who are protesting the nazis and white supremacists, and the ever-increasing militarization of the police force. It’s also lots of footage captured by independent journalists, and by lay citizens, of rampant corruption among law enforcement, and incessant violence toward the people they’re paid to protect; the very same taxpayers who fund police departments across the nation. Trust in law enforcement has evaporated.
In 2001, I don’t know how many people were watching the Yates case and thinking about whether or not correct policing and proper investigations had taken place. But in 2026, LOTS of people are thinking about this. In 2026, lots of people assume every word out of a police officer’s mouth is a lie. In 2026, lots of people assume every police department is corrupt and more interested in protecting itself than in finding truth. In 2026, lots of people can recognize when obvious questions that should have been asked by investigators, weren’t.
In domestic violence cases, Occam’s razor tells us: the husband did it. Though I assume the same axiom has been true for basically… ever, I don’t remember it being talked about, or being common knowledge, until relatively recently, maybe the last 5 years.
There’s a family annihilation story basically every month. Always committed by men. A recent sampling:
Just reported today, Alan Smith, age 44, returned to his parents’ home in Billings, Montana after being asked to leave and killed 8 family members. Last month, Kristopher Karolkiewicz, age 47, killed his wife and six children in Grand Haven Township, Michigan. The month before that, Ryan Willis McFarland, age 52, killed his wife and five children in Muscatine, Iowa.
Shall I keep going?
When a woman goes missing, we have enough historical knowledge to safely assume it’s the boyfriend or husband or ex-boyfriend or ex-husband who did it. We know about “alpine divorce”. We know that the number one cause of death for pregnant women is being killed by the man who impregnated her. We know the riskiest time for a woman’s safety is after she has announced she’s leaving a man, or asks for a divorce. We know that men commit 95% of violent crimes. We know there is basically nothing in place to deter violent men—in fact, only 2% of rapists ever see jail time—making rape effectively legal in the U.S.. We know men commonly use strangling as a form of murder. We know 45% of law enforcement, the men paid to protect us, are domestic abusers themselves.
We know why women choose the bear. We know it’s very reasonable to fear men. When we hear of a violent crime, we know it’s very logical to assume a man did it.
And that brings us back to the Clancy trial. To avoid life in prison without parole for Lindsey Clancy, her lawyer is trying to show the jury why they should have reasonable doubt in this case. That’s the job, and apparently, Lindsey Clancy’s lawyer has done an excellent job of it.
People watching the case are feeling doubt about Lindsey’s medication, about her temperature, about her ability to speak or communicate when help arrived, about the investigation, about her Apple watch, about her wounds, about the blood on the house, about the DNA on the equipment used to kill the children, about the expertise of the witnesses, about whether or not they can trust Patrick Clancy and what he says happened. (Patrick was Lindsey’s husband at the time of the killings.)
Women having doubt and expressing doubt about these things is not paranoid, it’s not a sign of craziness. Having doubt about these things is a demonstration that Lindsey’s lawyer is doing his job.
Patrick Clancy is not being examined for guilt or innocence by the court. And again, no one went into this trial doubting the original story that the media reported about this case. BUT, because: 1) people don’t trust law enforcement, 2) people know the stats on gender and violence, and 3) reasonable doubt has been introduced, there are some people that would simply like investigators to take a closer look at Patrick, to determine if his role in this story is what he claims.
This is a completely logical, rational thing to want. It would be very strange to look at all the reasonable doubt that has been introduced, filter it through the generalized lack of trust in law enforcement, examine it against our historical knowledge of men and violence, and NOT want Patrick’s role more closely examined.
If we look back at the Yates trial, one of the cultural conclusions was that though Andrea Yates drowned her children, her husband was not blameless in their deaths. The trial established that he knew she was sick, and knew that he shouldn’t leave the kids with her, and he did it anyway.
In the Clancy trial, I don’t know what the jury will say. Perhaps they will conclude that the original story we were told—that Lindsey Clancy killed her 3 children while dealing with symptoms of postpartum mental illness—is the whole story. If that’s the case, I hope Lindsey Clancy’s story will shed more light on the reality of postpartum psychosis and what it means. I hope that in the wake of this story, struggling women will be taken more seriously by their families and medical providers. And l hope that as a culture, we understand that even if his story ultimately holds up (I’m not watching closely enough to have an opinion about whether it will), at the very least, Patrick was not blameless. He knew Lindsey was struggling, and he left the kids with her anyway.
We need to expect more from men, and we need to demand more for women.
I hope you are well. I’m thinking about Dolly Parton today, and the horrendous flooding in Nepal. Sending you love.
kisses,
Gabrielle
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.