I’m starting off this journey back to writing for myself first and foremost by absolutely draining my brain of all the frustration I have around the Clancy murder trial. Go big or go home.
If you’re not familiar with the case, some trigger warnings upfront: Postpartum mental illness, suicide, homicide of children. And misogyny.
As I write this, the jury has finished their second day of deliberations and will resume on Monday regarding the fate of Lindsay Clancy, who allegedly killed her three children and attempted suicide during an acute mental health crisis (postpartum psychosis).
The loss of three innocent children is at the center of this case, but it has also blown open a nationwide discussion about postpartum mental health, and women’s mental health in general.
Lindsay did everything she was supposed to do. She met with psychiatrists and psychologists. She told them when her symptoms got worse. She took her prescribed medication. She journaled. She checked herself into the hospital. She kept meticulous track of her moods, her thoughts, her meds.
She was turned away from the suicide hotline because she didn’t have a plan. Her psychiatric doctors didn’t communicate with each other to see the bigger picture. Sometimes they told her to stay on meds (or upped her dosage) even when she reported suicidality or severe intrusive thoughts.
She flat out told her husband and mother she had intrusive thoughts about hurting their children.
Children she loved and adored. Lindsay was a good mother. She cared about her children more than anything. But no matter how grounded in reality you are, no matter how much you journal, no matter how much you try to get help, psychosis doesn’t play by reality’s rules.
The disclaimer: I’m not a legal expert. I am not on the jury. I have not watched the trial in its entirety. If you want to talk shit, I welcome the opportunity to practice regulating my nervous system and blocking your comments. (“Welcome” is a strong word… but I at least see it as an opportunity).
The jury has the following options I’m aware of:
- not guilty (acquittal)
- not criminally responsible (insanity)
- manslaughter
- murder in the first degree
- murder in the second degree
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is pushing for first degree murder. Their argument is that Lindsay purposely planned the deaths of her children and was in control of her actions. The defense is pushing for not guilty by reason of insanity.
My first issue: the prosecution botched the investigation
The Commonwealth’s investigation was so negligent that it wouldn’t even pass as a first draft for an episode of Law and Order. The cops left holes in the case they didn’t even bother looking at. If the Commonwealth’s duty in court is to remove all reasonable doubt, they failed miserably.
Testimony differed between Lindsay’s ex husband Patrick, who found her barely conscious outside their home the night of the murders when he got home from running errands, and the prosecution’s hired expert witnesses. And it differed significantly.
Patrick said that he spoke to Lindsay when he found her. He asked “What did you do?” and she replied, “I tried to kill myself.” He asked “Where are the kids?” and she said “In the basement.”
Except… according to the recording of the 911 call (which was played in the courtroom but is not publicly available—and that’s a good thing, because people on the internet would insert it into random videos to psychologically terrorize the masses since that’s how we do it in 2026), she apparently could only make garbled noises because her neck was wounded. Every first responder said that she could not speak.
That’s weird.
Then you have the prosecution’s final witness, a psychiatrist who does not work with postpartum women, who believed that Lindsay spoke to Patrick that night. When asked the source of her alleged quotes, he said he interviewed Patrick. Sir, what? He hadn’t listened to the 911 call. He had no idea whether or not she actually said what Patrick said she said, and that’s a consistent theme throughout the entire trial.
Patrick told them a version of events, and investigators barely collected evidence, because they assumed it was open and shut. Do they not watch the same cop procedurals we watch? You have to go by the book, otherwise you’re looking at a mistrial or somebody getting away with murder on a technicality.
This woman woke up handcuffed to a hospital bed and had to be told that her children were dead.
If Lindsay Clancy murdered her children in cold blood, the evidence would tell us that clearly. It would be an open and shut case. But the investigators didn’t do their due diligence. Lindsay Clancy is innocent until proven guilty, and I don’t think the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bothered making sure it could actually prove her guilty.
Here’s where this goes from “Wow, you really fucked up,” to “Holy shit, are people okay?”
Because people are not okay. On any post about the Clancy trial you can find on social media, you will find the comments full of people who were apparently there that night and watched her murder her kids right in front of them. That’s how sure they are that she did it. And God forbid you want to talk about postpartum mental health and how it’s nice that this case is shining such a spotlight on such an important topic, because then people will say “Oh so you think murdering kids is okay.”
That’s my big pissed-off problem with the Lindsay Clancy trial.
- Nobody cares about “innocent until proven guilty.”
- People would rather believe a woman killed her children in cold blood than believe that maybe she did not do that. It’s easier to believe she did it on purpose.
- If you question that narrative, people want to eat you alive.
If she did it on purpose, you can pretend it could never, ever be you. If she did it on purpose, you get to live comfortably in the fantasy land of “No matter what was going on mentally, I know I would never hurt my children.”
You cannot know that’s true.
You’ve never had psychosis. You’ve never bothered learning about it or imagining how scary it could be. You’ve never been in crisis to the point that reality isn’t distinguishable from the nightmare.
Her nightmare came true. Her children are gone.
Lindsay Clancy is living in hell every minute of every day.
And her agony is never going to be enough for people who wield righteous fury to avoid ever having to feel an ounce of empathy. It’s so much easier to condemn her than to put yourself in her shoes for five seconds and wonder how fucked up your mind would have to be to go that far.
My second issue: ignoring women is the default
The people who believe Lindsay is guilty have based that opinion on one man’s account of what happened that night. And I’m not saying Patrick killed the kids and tried to kill his wife. I’m also not saying he didn’t. With how botched the investigation was, and how much expert testimony came back around to “That’s what Patrick said happened” without independently verifying it, the absolute lack of critical thought is astonishing.
Anybody should be able to look at this swiss cheese investigation and say “wow, that’s really weird they didn’t follow up on those things.” Anybody should be able to read the details of the trial, the testimony, the discrepancies between testimonies, and at least come away thinking “We really don’t know what happened.”
But no… a bunch of people took Patrick’s word for it, and then a bunch more people decided that Patrick’s word was airtight and required no further proof or evidence gathering.
And then a whole lot of women saw Patrick’s testimony and said “Something isn’t right.”
Which I will continue exploring in my next post, because I gotta go eat dinner, but if I don’t publish this now I know I never will. I hate that. But here goes.
Born Again Minimalist 
Leave a comment