Ladies, what are we doing?
The internet is losing its ever-loving mind over the case of Lindsay Clancy, and it’s exposing how ridiculously lost we are as a populace.
The facts are straightforward and grotesque. In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy (née Musgrove), a Massachusetts mother of three, strangled her children — Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months) — to death with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury home. She had sent her then-husband Patrick out for takeout and a pharmacy run. While he was gone, she killed the kids, cut her own wrists and neck, overdosed, and jumped from a second-story window. She survived, paralyzed from the waist down. Patrick came home, found her in the snow, called 911, and discovered the bodies.
She had been drowning in severe postpartum anxiety, depression, insomnia, paranoia, and what defense lawyers call evolving psychosis (possibly bipolar disorder). She was on a heavy cocktail of psychiatric medications — reports count at least a dozen. She voluntarily checked into McLean Hospital and was discharged about three weeks before the killings. Texts and statements show she had told her mother and husband she was terrified, that the meds were making things worse, that she was having thoughts of harming the children, and that she wanted to be hospitalized. She also told people she desperately wanted to be a good mother and loved her kids.
Those kids are now dead, and she does not deny killing them.
But the trial now underway is not trying to answer “who did it?” but rather “was she criminally responsible?” If convicted of first-degree murder, she faces life without parole. If found not criminally responsible, she goes to a psychiatric facility, likely for the rest of her life. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not so psychotic that she lacked the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. Given the documented history, the medications, and the command hallucinations she described (“This is your last chance… kill the children so you can kill yourself”), that will be a steep climb.
That is the actual issue: cold-blooded or just crazy?
But instead of debating that, the online morons and wine moms of the world are churning out conspiracies faster than they go through a bottle of cabernet.
As soon as the trial opened, TikTok “sleuths” and online true-crime addicts decided the real story was that Patrick did it and framed her. Never mind the video and phone records that put him at CVS. Never mind that she admitted it. Never mind that her own defense is not contesting the killings. The conspiracy version requires a body double at the pharmacy, a manufactured psychosis, or some elaborate staging after he supposedly pushed her out the window. Their evidence? It doesn’t exist. But he did remarry… to another brunette?! Case closed. Put him behind bars, girls.
Some of them are hanging out of two-story windows with dish soap, trying to “prove” the blood pattern doesn’t match a jump. Others are raising nearly a million dollars on GoFundMe for her parents’ legal and travel expenses. Gross. I suppose parents can support their daughter, but the same online crowd that floods money to the killer’s family is busy turning the husband into the villain and treating the woman who strangled three children as the real victim.
Lefties (and the online true-crime crowd) raising money and sympathy for alleged murderers — hmm, where have we seen this before? Luigi Mangione, Karmelo Anthony, Decarlos Brown Jr., etc. Why do they always have to be so weird? Can’t we just say that the children were the victims, they didn’t deserve to die, it’s disgusting, and a tragedy that she didn’t get the help she needed before succumbing to her demons?
No, apparently they can’t. Instead, they invert the moral order and make the perpetrator the underdog.
This is how a certain corner of the culture operates now. Bad is good, good is bad. Postpartum depression (very common) gets collapsed into postpartum psychosis (very rare — about 1 in 1,000). Some women are publicly announcing they “see themselves in Lindsay” and that they were “only one step away” from the same act. Come again? Ladies, if you are one step away from strangling your toddlers for four minutes each because a voice told you to, get help immediately. That is not solidarity. That is a confession that something is deeply wrong.
It’s the same selective empathy that treats born children as tragic victims in one breath and disposable in another. The same people rushing to cast the woman who killed three living, breathing kids as the real victim are often the ones who shrug at far higher numbers of aborted children every year.
The day the Left is consistent on one single issue will be the day I get to retire.
Lindsay Clancy was clearly, severely mentally ill. I feel pity for the person who went through that nightmare of paranoia and command hallucinations. The medical system might not have done all it could; the medication pile-up looks reckless. But she still did it. The three children who used to speak, walk, crawl, and laugh are gone because of what she did. She is not the victim. The children are. Treating her as the central tragic figure while inventing conspiracies about her ex-husband is a form of soft denial, and a particularly ugly one when it comes wrapped in man-hating projection and online theater.
The real question is still the one the jury has to answer: was the psychosis so complete that she was not responsible?
Everything else — the body-double theories, the soap experiments, the reflexive blame-shifting — is just people refusing to look at a hard, ugly truth. A mother killed her children. Mental illness may explain it. It does not erase it. And turning the case into a soap opera about “the husband did it” helps no one, except maybe Candace Owens, who now has an idea for her next cash-cow series.
