Everyone I have seen or heard that is coming down on Clancy’s side either got their “evidence” from TikTok or spends a ridiculous amount of time on it. I don’t know what the answer is but it feels like we should treat TikTok like the national security threat it is. It’s a weapon designed to destroy (or at least confuse) the core morals and principles of western civilization. Were I king for a day I would nuke every TikTok server from space and salt the fields. TikTok delenda est.
So many of them say that the husband did it, when everybody in the trial agrees that SHE killed the kids -- the only question is if she's competent enough to pay for it.
Sort of like how all the armchair QBs thought that the Chauvin trial was about racism, when the government never even accused him of being racist.
It will be I think. If she’s not of sound mind there will be an effort to say the confession was coerced or that she was delusional or whatever story the defense claims. The legal system is a friggin joke.
Or, we could go back to just punishing people for the crimes they commit. This should have been an hour long deliberation with half given over to lunch before they decided to hang this evil bitch from a lamppost.
Hanging her from a lamppost would ensure that she doesn't harm anyone else and could be an incentive for other people to not act on their urges to kill people. It would also clearly make you feel better.
Reminds me of Harry Crews’ book, ‘Body.’ Psycho ‘Nam vet Nail puts a live grenade in a judge’s pocket in a men’s room. The judge says he doesn’t understand. Nail ends the judge (and the novel) with the line, “I don’t think understanding it’s ever been necessary.”
Matt's is the first piece on "outrage of the day" I've read, or watched - and I'm virtually certain Matt's described here everything I need to know about the deaths of three innocents.
Explained "Missing White Woman" to a pal who lives in Paris. Can't help but see this as the same.
Some, and more, things we don't want to be talking and thinking about are the bond markets, the war in Ukraine, and the dirt the good gophers continue to unearth about media/academia/security state collusion, corruption, and ripping off the taxpayers.
Last I checked, being a racist isn’t illegal. In America we don’t have thought crimes, or we’re not supposed to. This isn’t a defense of racism, just a reminder that we’re supposed to be free to think and form opinions - unpopular or ignorant or right in line with mainstream consensus - without government intervention.
Good point. While it is illegal to deprive someone of their civil rights based on race, rqcism per se, is not illegal... it may be wrong, but it is not illegal. Freedom does matter.
Aside from TikTok, I lay a lot of this at the feet of both Anthony Fauci and Candace Owens. Fauci destroyed decades of trust earned, legitimately and illegitimately, by the institutions that were load bearing pillars of our society. After Charlie Kirk was murdered, Candace with malice (and profit) aforethought successfully assembled all of the previously normal people who suddenly didn’t know who or what to trust, but were also unable to form their own independent thoughts, and convinced them that everything newsworthy is a conspiracy and a psyop and you should never ever believe what seems obvious. I don’t know how we come back from the fracturing of the American psyche into ever smaller slivers determined by your social media algorithm.
We spent the whole postwar period building institutions like Roman temples to the boomers. Fauci blew them all sky high and Candace is assembling the pieces into the Tower of Babel.
You give Candace WAY too much credit. Nobody in my Gen X circle listens to her. Neither does my Gen Z daughter or any of her friends. Candace, like Tucker changed (and went off to extremism land) because of who is paying her. Anyway, my Generation is about to take the controls. Boomers that still wanna lead a hedonistic lifestyle can take a backseat.
Boomers are about to start dropping like flies, actuarially. I think her audience is mainly millennial women. I’m a millennial and I sure hope Gen X can pull us out of this dive.
Scapegoating boomers as a whole is not the answer. Yes, many of the nut job boomers are also from the radical 60s and 70s. But many boomers also don't share those beliefs, and didn't buy into them during the 60s and 70s.
How can you sit here and, deservedly I'll say, villify Fauci who was pushing out industrial levels of propaganda from his position of authority within the NIH and yet you will also villify Candance for questioning the institutional narrative being pushed out about the killing of Charlie Kirk. I'm very confused at this animosity for Candance. I expect it from the far-right Christian nationalist TPUSA cohort like Benny Johnson and the likes but for people who would otherwise simply be at odds with the endemic institutional corruption, why is there this animosity for Candance?
She is questioning a narrative that has many many holes in it so for you to put Candace and Fauci in the same category makes ZERO sense, to my mind, and just shows how mixed up you really are with all of this.
Maybe. Maybe not. Everybody's out here trying to get paid for their coverage of something. That doesn't change the facts of the case. Nor does it change the batshit creepy nature of Erica Kirk, or have you not even considered these things? Erica Kirk is a grieving widow as much as Lindsey Clancy is a grieving mother.
From what I've heard, it would have been a good idea to sequester the jury and to enforce a gag order so the defense attorney couldn't have rallied the fan girls so much.
Actually the problem isn't necessarily Tik Tok. The problem is that people think there's "evidence" there. We used to have real news. We used to be taught reasonable things at school. We weren't all victims and so we knew who the real victims were. We were competent or we were considered losers. (merit had merit) We weren't racing to the bottom then. Globalism needed the US middle class and the US spirit of "Oh hell no., Hold my beer, I got this shit. Don't tell me how to think or speak... I'm an American..." to go away. We were an uncontrollable get shit done bunch of free thinkers and we were damn proud of it and it wasn't that fucking long ago. And we knew it wasn't okay to strangle your children because children are defenseless and to harm them is evil to the core. No one cheered for Andrea Yates or funded her. We need real news and not sponsored, partisan, censored propaganda. That's neither news nor free speech. We need to hold institutions accountable and that includes News outlets and educational institutions, all of them. Free speech is for individuals and I felt I had more of it before it was corporatized. We protect it but separate the tabloid and the lies and we call crazy for what it is and evil for what it is or the lines become blurry and undefinable. Reality is not an obstacle or a notion and there are facts even in a Fauci era but we stopped knowing them and decided everything was partisan and debatable because globalists knew Donald Trump wouldn't do their bidding. Their funding and their power play couldn't be interrupted. They needed US taxpayers to continue to provide their defense and their NGO and Clinton Foundation money, our drug addicted to pay for their cartels spoils which are enormous and for us to pay for our own demise. (Seriously,$200k for an indoctrination? How much for NGO's and non-profits? The UK has how many ships in it's Navy and can back us up how as allies?) Things need to start making sense again. VOTES OF CITIZENS NEED TO COUNT AGAIN. Jobs need to be real again, (Outsourcing our jobs was a breaking point and never made sense but if you need to kill the middle class and make people crazy taking away their jobs goes a long way towards that.) News needs to be real again and Tik Tok needs to be for cat videos and how to get stains out of your favorite shirt.
Most everyone in prison is there for a mental disorder of one kind or another, or they would have figured out a non criminal way to deal with whatever issue they had. So maybe we replace all prisons with psychiatric prisons, keep everyone's sentences intact, and call it a day? Maybe just rename the prisons we have as psychiatric prisons?
I regularly say the same thing to people who defend monsters with "But they were abused as children." Yeah, our prisons are filled with adults who were abused as children, but we still keep them in prison regardless.
Obviously, the lunatics who find each other on Tik-Tok can just as easily find each other on other social media platforms like X. In fact, they do already. Tik-tok is not the problem.
Adding… our daughter and son attended Jesuit college prep school and then daughter on to Jesuit university. She’ll be married this October in the Cathedral in the city she and her fiance went to college and met. We’re so blessed! Hope you get to enjoy that time with your daughter next year.
I think they were forced to divest their Chinese ownership to an American company because the main fear was the amount of data that the Chinese communist party would have access to. Which is legitimate. But the septuagenarians in Congress failed to realize that an equal or larger threat is that it allows and incentivizes all of the crazies in the country to feed into each other’s fantasies. So they are able to manufacture the illusion that their craziest ideas are actually majority option. As humans and moreso women are intensely social this just builds into a social contagion.
TikTok was the main source of news on Israel's genocide in Gaza for the younger generation. That generation was turning (and now, has turned) against Israel.
Zionist control of American media was absolute, except for TikTok.
Trump's handlers had him force TikTok's sale to Zionist billionaire Larry Ellison.
The new Zionist TikTok does NOT allow truth from Gaza on its platform. Other than that, anything goes.
Stupid goyim want to kill their kids and then celebrate the murder? Have at it!
Awesome. Now a whole generation is obsessed with a war halfway around the world and is siding with the civilization-destroying islamists. Say whatever you like about Israel but I still prefer a people that can actually build a functioning society to one that worships a goat-fucking warlord from the most backwards part of the world. Islam only and always spreads through war and conquest, from its founding. I don’t want to be Muslim, nor do I want the US to become a Muslim country, so I will side with any country that opposes them. And I know this will go over your head but you don’t get to start a war and then bitch and moan when the other side fights back. Fuck around and find out. The Palestinians fucked around. They’re finding out. Cry me a river.
Muslims will absolutely lie with no remorse in order to advance their interests. I don’t believe a single thing they say. I don’t particularly believe the Israelis but since they were mostly Western Europeans and follow a biblical tradition I’m far more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If given a choice between “muh joos rule the world” and actual Muslims ruling the world, it’s no choice at all for me
I think the underlying problem is much larger than tik-tok and predates it by centuries.
here is how i am interpreting the situation:
In our society, women are seen as possessing hypoagency. This means that people think they are less capable then they really are. This causes them many problems in life that men don't face. However, those seen as less able are also seen as more deserving of help and assistance. Because women are falsely seen as weak, they are easily seen as victims.
Conversely: men are seen as possessing hyperagency. This means that people think they are more capable then they really are. This causes them many problems in life that women don't face. One of those problems is the difficulty people have seeing men as victims.
the entire reason this trial is happening is to determine if Clancy *had agency* when she was killing her children. nobody involved with the trial is disputing whether she committed the crime - even Lindsay herself admits she did.
the reason that the armchair detectives on tik-tok assume Lindsay is innocent is because they seem to be working from a gender-based bias about women's agency in general. there reasons, in aggregate, seems to be something like "the only way a woman would do something this horrific is if she had no agency"
i highly doubt that had a man with, say, PTSD behaved in the exact same way that these same detectives would be rallying to support him.
the *also* explains the recurring conspiracy theories about Patrick being the real killer - Lindsay , being a woman, *must* have been framed or manipulated because again - a woman cannot possibly have enough agency to knowingly kill her children.
my problem with this is that Lindsay behaviour contains many examples that suggest she *did* in fact have agency at the time - which is why the case is being prosecuted in the first place, rather than being pleaded out.
this whole situation is a perfect microcosm for highlighting the sexist gender-myths that are so insidiously pervasive throughout, like, every culture ever since time began.
talking about this is incredibly taboo though, especially with women's advocates who's core philosophy and world-view essentially doubles down on male hyperagency and female hypoagency, and then uses that as a lens to interpret the world.
Right you are, Aaron S. The Chinese have also used TikTok effectively to convince us to stand down on fossil fuels (while they and India continue to pollute away) and to scare the gormless "young uns" about AI and data centers so that they can take over the world.
I'm gonna be writing something deeper on this but think of these points.
1. never before in modern American history has a woman who murdered her children become a martyr and a hero for so many women - mostly liberal but not all.
2. Not Susan Smith, not Andrea Yates. What changed? The Great Feminization where women were put in power and group dynamics have changed everything, from Hollywood to "woke" to this trial.
3. Mass hysteria + Me Too = women as eternal victims both empowered and in need of rescuing.
4. She's pretty and maybe that doesn't matter but none of the other famous moms were like protagonists in a Lifetime movie. They don't just love her. They see themselves in her. Project themselves onto her.
5. She systematically executed her three children in the same state that just ruled a woman can have an abortion even in the later part of the pregnancy.
6. Why do they see the kids as oppressors? Because men are the oppressors and they shot their wad into them, oppressing them.
Yesterday someone called into WABC NYC talk radio and made an interesting comment. She’s had several practitioners prescribing her many medications and none of the practitioners checked to see what the other practitioners prescribed. Her brain may be fried at this point. The health industry like other industries is dysfunctional in many ways.
Mass hysteria in pink. Think about the responsibilities these deluded gals are rejecting -- can they sign for credit, a ballot, take a Juror's Oath, a naturalization oath, an oath of office, if they can just wig out and violate all with impunity because of aggrieved feelings? Are these pinksters responsible enough to be free?
Beauty standards must have slipped while I was selfishly occupied by a 50 year relationship.
In a world where Lindsey and Luigi are considered hot and random conditions from the DSM are considered good reasons to excuse the gruesome strangulation of ones own children one has to wonder where all the adults have gone.
If you were able to survey Lindsey’s supporters, I think you would find very few who have happy healthy marriages with children. I think you’ll find she garnered support as a proxy. Failed marriages and grudges against the fathers of their children for a lack of support.
Maybe, but their mere presence is an unsightliness which civilized people shouldn't have to bear.
At this moment I can imagine how Eisenhower would have felt if he had ordered the townspeople of Ordruf to inspect the concentration camp, they had, and had been unbothered by what they discovered.
At least the mayor and his wife had the good taste to commit suicide that evening.
Disagree. We need them. The police had it completely wrong on Karen Read.
The crowd will get it wrong from time to time but we need to tolerate them for the few times they get it right. Karen Read became a national story b/c of her supporters. It uncovered massive police corruption. 10 police officers resigned or took early retirement.
Agree. Unsightly. But a necessary evil. Natural check on the system.
Completely agree! Watched and followed the Karen Reid trial(s) too and Boston seemed to be a cesspool of police corruption, but we cannot rid ourselves of all police.
“We’re a culture that doesn’t forgive, but quickly excuses”
I don’t know exactly what this means either but these are prophetic words. My guess is that we as a culture writ large are becoming morally bankrupt.
If not a return to God, and specifically, to the Christian God who demands forgiveness, love of Him and love of each other - can our society truly heal. All else is shifting sand.
Strong close - I’m right there with you. It feels like we’ve lost our way and there’s no near term path back.
“We’re a culture that doesn’t forgive, but quickly excuses. I don’t know what it means, nor do I understand how this case became a such a rallying cry for — something? What, exactly? How can “mental defect” have a lobby? What’s happening to people?”
It's scarier when you realize it isn't just white mothers. The killer of Iryna Zarutska? "Must be mental health issues! No prison for him!" It's an excuse used all the time now for anyone with a reasonable score on the intersectional hierarchy scale.
Meanwhile, for normal people like me with mental health issues? We are expected to keep covered up at all times and just struggle through life. A bit of depression while dating? Women will think the absolute worst of you. This woman? Support and celebration. It's so (ironically) depressing.
Sasha, I love your Substack and you often make great points. But the so-called "Great Feminization" has become an excuse to blame women for everything and demean many female leaders in our society and the world who are unhinged leftist ideologues but are just toiling away everyday doing their job. As for the crazy pink brigade, please check out Holly Mathnerd's take. She's a mathematics expert and statistician who as far as I can see has the only truly objective take on this Clancy saga.
Matt, I suggest you check out her article on this too, if you're doing research on this case/phenomena.
Personally, I never liked true crimes stories. Crime fiction and mysteries, otoh, are something I can devour. The Clancy saga is tragic and horrific but I also can't wait till the news cycle move on to something else.
Well I’m just glad to finally see “Not All” applies to women too. For too long, men could defend themselves on matters of violence and rape but every time a female nut job does something bad she becomes the representative of “women”. So we’re getting somewhere at last.
But no men, that I'm aware of, are out there taking selfies with the defense attorney in their stupid pink shirts and switching on the ring light to make TikToks with stupid bird hands and empty eyes.
That first article is probably one of the best pieces I’ve read about this entire thing. Social media is absolutely destroying us as people, I caught myself doing the same thing as the author and thinking negatively of women as a whole because of this stuff. Like the author I also pride myself on not doing this group think nonsense but with social media it’s just so easy to slip into it.
Whatever works (which it didn't, apparently). She murdered her children in cold blood. She should be in prison, even if it's a mental health institution. I don't understand how it's not clear that she is using the insanity defense to excuse what she did. She had presence of mind enough to plan the whole thing, to take a call from her husband and calmly give him another errand to make sure she had time to finish. Yes, insane to you and I, but not to a calculated murderer.
American society has been excusing bad behavior and promoting victim mentality for years now. Even though I’ve come to expect it, it’s utterly shocking to me that so many are calling for “justice” for the woman who methodically and viciously killed her three babies, instead of being enraged on behalf of the babies themselves. What have we become?
We ve got the same thing with luigi mangione. The guy allegedly kills somebody in cold blood and is being viewed as a hero. It’s not all that new though. We ve seen it before, most notably with Charles Manson. Others don’t come to mind right away, but it would be interesting if people could point out similar situations, were killers get hero/cult like followings.
Because of Tik Tok and social media in general. Yates and other cases didn’t have the social media popularity like criminal cases do now. Most woman are on Tik Tok also. Woman have become more selfish and likes the victim role. I’m a woman myself and see this and it’s terrifying. The group think of woman is becoming the norm. Also abortion until Birth has become legal in many more states and now it’s not rare it’s if I don’t want kids or can’t handle them just kill them in the womb. The sad thing is the woman supporting her gets all the news from Tik Tok arm chair lawyers instead of watching her actual trial. They are also bringing their children to protest and “support”. The 3 babies brutally killed by someone who is supposed to be safe and love them unconditionally are not even being mentioned. Victimhood has become a norm for woman.
What were the theories being discussed on Social Media, and were they discussed in the jury room? In other words, is this another example of liability protection for social media that should be reversed?
Who quickly excuses? Pathetic losers who have no empathy or moral grounding.
What’s three more dead children in a society that has no value for them. Ninth month abortions. Who cares. Thousands of trafficked children in the US of A. Who cares. Children in inner cities that can’t read or do math up to the modest standards of what it takes in society to get ahead. Who effin cares.
It shows just how morally corrupt our society has become. There was a copycat murder this week in Illinois where a mother killed her 2 yr old in the exact same manner as Clancy killed her. The news reports indicate that the mother was heavily invested in the Clancy murders. A society that can’t punish someone who was not insane is morally bankrupt.
But some have, and so have some men. Medication-induced psychosis affects men and women, and can lead to murder. It isn't unhinged to realize that people can do terrible things while insane. And if you are unfortunate to live with someone who goes in and out of psychotic states, the Lindsay Clancy story isn't that strange. Feeling compassion for the murderer does not mean that a person lacks compassion for the victims. It means one realizes how fragile sanity is, and how if we truly want to protect people from future crimes, we need to be more honest and careful with regards to medications.
Good or evil and sane or insane pertain to two different matters.
Good or evil pertains to the morality of a person's actions. Sane or insane pertains to whether a person's actions are based on an ability to accurately understanding reality in the presence of information that would allow most people to do so.
We conclude that Clancy is evil because she exhibited a propensity to act in a way that is horribly morally wrong. She is insane because she was unable to act in accordance with the reality that there was no good in killing her children and almost no one with the information she had would conclude otherwise.
Sane people simply never kill their children. There is no rational thought process that can lead them to conclude that the benefits of doing so exceed the costs.
Under this bilateral test of yours no one can be convicted of murder for killing a family member. You have arbitrarily declared them “insane”.
That is irreconcilable with reality. Evil morally bankrupt people kill. They somehow rationalize it. Including family members.
To the average person they must be “insane” but are they “legally insane”?
There is a huge difference between our perception and sense vs the legal standard.
I wasnt in the courtroom, have heard none of the evidence as it was presented ( the opinions and views of court watchers is useless.. they have some kind of agenda since they are being paid to provide commentary).. as such I cant say and wont act like I know
That being said the blanket .. she has to be insane since she did it… is unsound.
not insane, Not even close, She planned this out, insane people don't plan they just act. John Wayne Gacy tortured his victims before he killed them and then ate their flesh, He tried the insanity defense and was rejected. Thank god the prisoners he was incarcerated with dealt him the justice that he deserved.
All I know, and I know it without a doubt. If that was a straight white man sitting there after doing that to his kids, he'd have been found guilty in less than an hour. The unequal lenses and treatment are destroying everything.
Just a question since I thought the same thing as you but…does it matter that she claims to have had postpartum psychosis which men can’t get from the pregnancy? Thanks in advance in case you reply.
I mean, there are definitely some really horrible feelings that can happen. I suffered through pp depression myself, but those are not feelings that would allow a mom to very slowly strangle 3 kids. We would more likely kill ourselves. And if we lived, as soon as that psychosis had been managed, we'd try again every day because we couldn't live with ourselves.
This is sadly a foreseeable consequence with the idiotic defense of "He didn't know any better," which we see all the time when it comes to specific demographics raping women. Once you start justifying WHY somebody did something instead of asking IF they did it, you're already on the slippery slope.
I think maybe it's time to consider that we need professional jury members. At least then we can ensure that people are sane, know the law, and have a way to hold them accountable for illogical rulings.
Professional jury members? That will not go well. Who will train them? Who will accredit the trainers? Who will ensure the "profession" is not ideologically stacked? And there would be the Professional Jurors Union (the dreaded PJU) to contend with.
And Mediation Capture is a real issue in the mediation industry at many levels.
Pre-vetted by whom? Based on what criteria? I've sat on juries: a a random jury of one's peers is the worst way to reach a verdict, except for all the others (apologies, Mr. Churchill).
I'm imagining all sorts of tests providing clear indication that the juror understands a specific set of laws that would qualify one to serve on specific cases. The jurors are then randomly selected from all eligible people. Any American could take the tests.
Seems better than ultimately deciding cases based on the identity of the people in the trial.
Her attorney said she “grieves the loss” of them. Loss!!! They weren’t lost! She killed them!! I just can’t get over that incredibly offensive way of putting it.
I agree with needing professional jury members. It's terrifying to have 12 people who don't know the law and rely on emotions rather than logical thinking decide if someone is guilty or not.
So another opportunity for the "elite managerial class" to rule us? No thanks, let's think of a better solution. Like gut public education and start over. Like fix our culture. Not easy. Not quick. Very necessary.
I see what you're saying, but gutting the entire education system, starting over, and fixing our culture is a whole lot more work than throwing the names of mediators into a hat and drawing out 12 of them.
I'm writing up something about this for tomorrow! All I know is that "A jury of my peers" doesn't include people who can't process logic or who will vote based on the skin color of the trial participants.
So we know why all but one of the jury members were favoring a not guilty verdict?
Obviously, there was something about the elements of the crimes that Clancy was charged with that the jurors (except maybe one) concluded didn't match with the facts of the case.
I am with you. I do believe that the drugs prescribed certainly had something to do with it. Even conceding that, she must be locked up either in a mental ward or jail. She murdered the most dependent people on earth, children. She murdered the people who most trusted her. She murdered innocents.
I know if I woke up one day and they told me I murdered my children, I would beg that the state kill me. I would offer no defense and ask for the death penalty.
Sadly, "life in a mental ward" is not a sentence that the justice system can impose. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal. After that, it's up to the (highly untrustworthy) mental health bureaucracy to decide whether the perp stays confined or not.
An insanity plea should increase, not decrease, the required incarceration. Lindsey Clancy should never be allowed to pledge a civil oath of adult responsibility for anything, ever again. She might reoffend and that thought is utterly heinous.
This is my concern. The whole point of justice system is to provide a more organized and impartial justice. When that fails, of course people will eventually take things into their own hands. I'm not saying they shouldn't - - sometimes Justice really does need to prevail - - but rather it's reprehensible that the idiots who pretend to be our elites brought us to this position.
We are so inured to the current system, we lose track of the fact that the government only exists at our pleasure. Everybody should read the constitution once a year, it's not very long.
The problem is that this instance of murder is just another example of our new found inability to keep innocents protected in this country. Just look at all of the miscreants and repeat offenders who are given a pass time after time by judges and DAs for rape, stabbings, murder, ad nauseum. And they are given these passes simply because of their status as 'oppressed'. We are in deep, deep trouble.
It seems like we can’t agree on basic facts anymore. I don’t know if this is a partisan thing—objectively it can’t be, but it also doesn’t need to make sense. The supporters are also there to talk about their own trauma, supporting her as part of their story in a weird narcissistic moment where they are heard about when they struggled. Had Saad’s book, Suicidal Empathy might need a sequel
I saw Trump live, maybe not up close like you did, but I certainly didn't conclude what you did about his mental state. :) Nor would I agree with it now. Pretty subjective analysis. However, I agree with the rest of the sentiment. She planned it, she knew it was wrong. That seems enough for me. Yes, she might also be crazy, so if I can be assured she will never be set free, put her anywhere you want.
Matt - a thought experiment. Assume all circumstances and actions apply, except Clancy strangles 3 of her neighbors children on the direction of voices. Would there be a lobby of support? And if not, why? I think she’s insane and deserves to locked up for life. How can she be rehabilitated? And is that an outcome consistent with justice. She brutally killed 3 children, one at a time. With each murder taking minutes. So hard to even contemplate but society must. What is justice?
it was my understanding that she didn't mention the voices until AFTER she'd murdered the children. Who knows if she heard them or if it was another stratagem.
I'm a politically conservative woman. I'm also clinical psychologist who has worked with people with psychosis, bipolar, and postpartum depression. I haven't watched the trial, but I can say from decades of experience as a psychotherapist that people who are deeply depressed truly begin to think and "reason" in a way that they don't recognize is wrong or irrational. This is why it looks "selfish" to everyone else when a person commits suicide, but I've had clients who genuinely believe everyone else will be happier if they kill themselves and stop burdening them, that it will be a favor to their family. That fact that everyone would actually be devastated is obvious to everyone thinking normally, but it's not obvious to the deeply depressed person in that moment. I've also talked with women with postpartum depression who thought "dying together" with the baby was the maternal thing to do, not a homicidal act. That's how bizarre and distorted the thinking becomes with severe depression that doesn't even have psychotic features. Lay people have a hard time wrapping their heads around it and judge people without understanding unless they've experienced this.
Add psychosis and the risk is much higher. This does NOT mean that the person doesn't recognize real things or can't reason at all, but it's even more distorted because now an aspect of unreality also seems real to them, e.g. the voice that is talking to them that no one else can hear seems as real as the voices of their loved ones or therapist, and so that voice also has influence. Unfortunately, if no one knows to ask, no one knows that other voice is talking to them.
I'm not an expert on legal definitions of "insanity" but I have sympathy for the depressed and psychotic people who have temporarily "lost" their mind and do horrible things in that state. I appreciate the legal dilemma for a society on what to do about that. In my mind, it's similar to whether and how to punish someone who killed someone because they fell asleep or had a seizure when driving their car versus someone who chose to drink and drive and killed someone.
What I have read makes me wonder why Lindsay Clancy wasn't hospitalized or at the very least, partial hospitalization (hospital during the day, home at night) where mental health providers are assessing symptoms daily. When I work with a client who is suicidal or psychotic, I explain the dangers to the spouse/parents, educate about further warning signs, and instruct them to never leave the person alone for long, to not let them be in charge of their own medication, and to remove items that can be dangerous like knives and guns. If people seem to suddenly "improve", that can actually be a warning sign of something ominous. If Mr. Clancy wasn't given these kinds of instructions and education, that's a problem.
The game from the defense was to admit to the killing but claim she was insane and try to get into a mental institution and then scam the shrinks to claim she’s all better and get released. Massachusetts being completely corrupt it was a good plan. Otherwise she goes to prison and never gets out.
This juror better go into the juror protection program because the feminazis are coming for his head.
I don't think corruption has much to do with it in this case.
Techno Fog (The Reactionary on Substack) did a post about the trial before jury deliberations started. Massachusetts is one of the few states, and maybe the only one, where an defense of mental incapacity forces the prosecution to prove criminal culpability (basically, knowledge that what you did was wrong at the time you were acting and doing it anyway) rather than the defense having to prove it as would be the case if you claimed self-defense.
His over all point was criminal culpability doesn't mean the person can't have mental issues or even require ongoing treatment because what matters is a demonstration by actions and statements that you are acting in a rational manner and with a knowledge that what you are doing is wrong (acting guilty, more or less). He pointed to the example of Andrea Yates who drowned her kids back in 2001 as being a murderer who presents very differently from Clancy. Yates had attempted suicide multiple times, self-mutilated, and reported wild hallucinations prior to the murders. Clancy had none of those issues.
I only meant corruption after the fact of Clancy being sent to a mental institution rather than a prison. Once there the defense can shrink shop to find someone or someone’s to come up with the prescribed diagnosis. That would be easy to do in corrupt Massachusetts.
Prescient comment Matt regarding forgiveness and excuses. It's been quite apparent for some time now that one side of the political aisle regularly excuses their own behavior. This is two sets of rules; one for your opposition and with this, a separate set for your allies.
Yes, declaring Trump not guilty by reason of insanity was “different” because it would be helping Trump, and that’s the only principle Matt’s lib interlocutor cared about.
Everyone I have seen or heard that is coming down on Clancy’s side either got their “evidence” from TikTok or spends a ridiculous amount of time on it. I don’t know what the answer is but it feels like we should treat TikTok like the national security threat it is. It’s a weapon designed to destroy (or at least confuse) the core morals and principles of western civilization. Were I king for a day I would nuke every TikTok server from space and salt the fields. TikTok delenda est.
So many of them say that the husband did it, when everybody in the trial agrees that SHE killed the kids -- the only question is if she's competent enough to pay for it.
Sort of like how all the armchair QBs thought that the Chauvin trial was about racism, when the government never even accused him of being racist.
She admitted killing them. it's not in question.
Copycat murder of child by mom in Illinois reported just hours ago. Mom was following the Clancy trial.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/frankfort-mom-texted-about-lindsay-clancy-trial-hours-before-tragic-scene-unfolded/3985054/
Why is this (only) happening in Blue districts? Or, am I mistaken in this observation?
I fear we will see a wave of child killings by mothers because now it’s sanctioned.
A new psychosis, the desperate pursuit of TikTok fame and forgiveness, looks to be emerging in crazy women.
Repeal A 19??
09/05/26: You and I may be mistaken, but they NEVER are.
NOOOOOOOOO
It will be I think. If she’s not of sound mind there will be an effort to say the confession was coerced or that she was delusional or whatever story the defense claims. The legal system is a friggin joke.
Please, no facts!
Actually her husband told her she did and she didn’t disagree.
yeah, I read all about the Patrick said stuff after the original post... Lord.
As William Munny (Clint Eastwood) said, "Payin' for it's got nuthin' to do with it."
The children are dead and nothing will change that. The question is what to do with Clancy. The considerations are:
1. Protecting people from Clancy specifically. She's demonstrated insufficient ability to control her impulses to harm people.
2. Establishing reasonable incentives to deter other people from doing what she did.
Or, we could go back to just punishing people for the crimes they commit. This should have been an hour long deliberation with half given over to lunch before they decided to hang this evil bitch from a lamppost.
Hanging her from a lamppost would ensure that she doesn't harm anyone else and could be an incentive for other people to not act on their urges to kill people. It would also clearly make you feel better.
Just to be technical, when Little Bill said "I don't deserve this. I was building a house." Muny responds "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
Yes. I took liberties with the quote.
Put her in a pillory in Times Square.
Stocks in Boston Common.
My reply to Aaron on this thread applies here, too.
Nope, the movie line is: "Deserves got nuthin to do with it." The line in the original script by David Webb Peoples is slightly different still.
Reminds me of Harry Crews’ book, ‘Body.’ Psycho ‘Nam vet Nail puts a live grenade in a judge’s pocket in a men’s room. The judge says he doesn’t understand. Nail ends the judge (and the novel) with the line, “I don’t think understanding it’s ever been necessary.”
You're right. I was being tongue-in-cheek in claiming an exact quote.
(Thanks for letting me know that the line was different in the original script. I had AI pull it up for me. The movie line's much better. 🙂)
Matt's is the first piece on "outrage of the day" I've read, or watched - and I'm virtually certain Matt's described here everything I need to know about the deaths of three innocents.
Explained "Missing White Woman" to a pal who lives in Paris. Can't help but see this as the same.
Some, and more, things we don't want to be talking and thinking about are the bond markets, the war in Ukraine, and the dirt the good gophers continue to unearth about media/academia/security state collusion, corruption, and ripping off the taxpayers.
Yes, so good to recall that Chauvin was neither found guilty of, or even charged with racist conduct... wonder how many oeople even know that?
Free Derek.
Last I checked, being a racist isn’t illegal. In America we don’t have thought crimes, or we’re not supposed to. This isn’t a defense of racism, just a reminder that we’re supposed to be free to think and form opinions - unpopular or ignorant or right in line with mainstream consensus - without government intervention.
Good point. While it is illegal to deprive someone of their civil rights based on race, rqcism per se, is not illegal... it may be wrong, but it is not illegal. Freedom does matter.
Aside from TikTok, I lay a lot of this at the feet of both Anthony Fauci and Candace Owens. Fauci destroyed decades of trust earned, legitimately and illegitimately, by the institutions that were load bearing pillars of our society. After Charlie Kirk was murdered, Candace with malice (and profit) aforethought successfully assembled all of the previously normal people who suddenly didn’t know who or what to trust, but were also unable to form their own independent thoughts, and convinced them that everything newsworthy is a conspiracy and a psyop and you should never ever believe what seems obvious. I don’t know how we come back from the fracturing of the American psyche into ever smaller slivers determined by your social media algorithm.
This is worth reading.
https://www.sashastone.com/p/why-lindsay-clancy-is-guilty-beyond
Sasha and Matt make wayyyyyy too much sense.
the official religion of America is now The Church of the Holy Conspiracy Theory.
Christianity had a good run, but it can’t compete with Tik-Tok and “the Jews killed Charlie Kirk with an exploding microphone, duurrrhhh!”
the inversion is complete y’all.
We spent the whole postwar period building institutions like Roman temples to the boomers. Fauci blew them all sky high and Candace is assembling the pieces into the Tower of Babel.
You give Candace WAY too much credit. Nobody in my Gen X circle listens to her. Neither does my Gen Z daughter or any of her friends. Candace, like Tucker changed (and went off to extremism land) because of who is paying her. Anyway, my Generation is about to take the controls. Boomers that still wanna lead a hedonistic lifestyle can take a backseat.
Boomers are about to start dropping like flies, actuarially. I think her audience is mainly millennial women. I’m a millennial and I sure hope Gen X can pull us out of this dive.
Scapegoating boomers as a whole is not the answer. Yes, many of the nut job boomers are also from the radical 60s and 70s. But many boomers also don't share those beliefs, and didn't buy into them during the 60s and 70s.
How can you sit here and, deservedly I'll say, villify Fauci who was pushing out industrial levels of propaganda from his position of authority within the NIH and yet you will also villify Candance for questioning the institutional narrative being pushed out about the killing of Charlie Kirk. I'm very confused at this animosity for Candance. I expect it from the far-right Christian nationalist TPUSA cohort like Benny Johnson and the likes but for people who would otherwise simply be at odds with the endemic institutional corruption, why is there this animosity for Candance?
She is questioning a narrative that has many many holes in it so for you to put Candace and Fauci in the same category makes ZERO sense, to my mind, and just shows how mixed up you really are with all of this.
Candace is a class-A grifter looking to make bank off of Charlie’s murder. If you can’t see that, you’ve been had.
Maybe. Maybe not. Everybody's out here trying to get paid for their coverage of something. That doesn't change the facts of the case. Nor does it change the batshit creepy nature of Erica Kirk, or have you not even considered these things? Erica Kirk is a grieving widow as much as Lindsey Clancy is a grieving mother.
But I've been had....got it.
Candance is a Jew hater, and hate will eventually destroy
From what I've heard, it would have been a good idea to sequester the jury and to enforce a gag order so the defense attorney couldn't have rallied the fan girls so much.
Actually the problem isn't necessarily Tik Tok. The problem is that people think there's "evidence" there. We used to have real news. We used to be taught reasonable things at school. We weren't all victims and so we knew who the real victims were. We were competent or we were considered losers. (merit had merit) We weren't racing to the bottom then. Globalism needed the US middle class and the US spirit of "Oh hell no., Hold my beer, I got this shit. Don't tell me how to think or speak... I'm an American..." to go away. We were an uncontrollable get shit done bunch of free thinkers and we were damn proud of it and it wasn't that fucking long ago. And we knew it wasn't okay to strangle your children because children are defenseless and to harm them is evil to the core. No one cheered for Andrea Yates or funded her. We need real news and not sponsored, partisan, censored propaganda. That's neither news nor free speech. We need to hold institutions accountable and that includes News outlets and educational institutions, all of them. Free speech is for individuals and I felt I had more of it before it was corporatized. We protect it but separate the tabloid and the lies and we call crazy for what it is and evil for what it is or the lines become blurry and undefinable. Reality is not an obstacle or a notion and there are facts even in a Fauci era but we stopped knowing them and decided everything was partisan and debatable because globalists knew Donald Trump wouldn't do their bidding. Their funding and their power play couldn't be interrupted. They needed US taxpayers to continue to provide their defense and their NGO and Clinton Foundation money, our drug addicted to pay for their cartels spoils which are enormous and for us to pay for our own demise. (Seriously,$200k for an indoctrination? How much for NGO's and non-profits? The UK has how many ships in it's Navy and can back us up how as allies?) Things need to start making sense again. VOTES OF CITIZENS NEED TO COUNT AGAIN. Jobs need to be real again, (Outsourcing our jobs was a breaking point and never made sense but if you need to kill the middle class and make people crazy taking away their jobs goes a long way towards that.) News needs to be real again and Tik Tok needs to be for cat videos and how to get stains out of your favorite shirt.
"TikTok delenda est" - I am stealing this.
They made "fun" games where the goal was to have american children injure other american children.
Not on their chinese version of the platform. Just ours.
Another example of how a superpower is taken down.
Most everyone in prison is there for a mental disorder of one kind or another, or they would have figured out a non criminal way to deal with whatever issue they had. So maybe we replace all prisons with psychiatric prisons, keep everyone's sentences intact, and call it a day? Maybe just rename the prisons we have as psychiatric prisons?
I regularly say the same thing to people who defend monsters with "But they were abused as children." Yeah, our prisons are filled with adults who were abused as children, but we still keep them in prison regardless.
Obviously, the lunatics who find each other on Tik-Tok can just as easily find each other on other social media platforms like X. In fact, they do already. Tik-tok is not the problem.
Most excellent, nailed it! As did Matt - tight, pithy, and right over the target. One of Matt's best - signal to noise ratio. Superb!
Adding… our daughter and son attended Jesuit college prep school and then daughter on to Jesuit university. She’ll be married this October in the Cathedral in the city she and her fiance went to college and met. We’re so blessed! Hope you get to enjoy that time with your daughter next year.
Didn’t Congress pass a law banning it?
I think they were forced to divest their Chinese ownership to an American company because the main fear was the amount of data that the Chinese communist party would have access to. Which is legitimate. But the septuagenarians in Congress failed to realize that an equal or larger threat is that it allows and incentivizes all of the crazies in the country to feed into each other’s fantasies. So they are able to manufacture the illusion that their craziest ideas are actually majority option. As humans and moreso women are intensely social this just builds into a social contagion.
Israel bought it last Spring. Since a major part of the Zionist project is creating chaos, TikTok is a very useful tool for them.
Zechariah 14:12.
Is Oracle Israeli?
Uh, no.
TikTok was the main source of news on Israel's genocide in Gaza for the younger generation. That generation was turning (and now, has turned) against Israel.
Zionist control of American media was absolute, except for TikTok.
Trump's handlers had him force TikTok's sale to Zionist billionaire Larry Ellison.
The new Zionist TikTok does NOT allow truth from Gaza on its platform. Other than that, anything goes.
Stupid goyim want to kill their kids and then celebrate the murder? Have at it!
https://www.commondreams.org/news/tiktok-andreesen-ellison
Awesome. Now a whole generation is obsessed with a war halfway around the world and is siding with the civilization-destroying islamists. Say whatever you like about Israel but I still prefer a people that can actually build a functioning society to one that worships a goat-fucking warlord from the most backwards part of the world. Islam only and always spreads through war and conquest, from its founding. I don’t want to be Muslim, nor do I want the US to become a Muslim country, so I will side with any country that opposes them. And I know this will go over your head but you don’t get to start a war and then bitch and moan when the other side fights back. Fuck around and find out. The Palestinians fucked around. They’re finding out. Cry me a river.
Muslims will absolutely lie with no remorse in order to advance their interests. I don’t believe a single thing they say. I don’t particularly believe the Israelis but since they were mostly Western Europeans and follow a biblical tradition I’m far more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. If given a choice between “muh joos rule the world” and actual Muslims ruling the world, it’s no choice at all for me
They passed a law forcing its sale to American buyers. IIRC Trump stayed the law for a bit and I don't know what happened after that.
Ellison only barely qualifies as "American."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/tiktok-andreesen-ellison
Murder?
Thank you for a one word post that made me laugh very loud!! Very efficient!
Tik Tok
I think the underlying problem is much larger than tik-tok and predates it by centuries.
here is how i am interpreting the situation:
In our society, women are seen as possessing hypoagency. This means that people think they are less capable then they really are. This causes them many problems in life that men don't face. However, those seen as less able are also seen as more deserving of help and assistance. Because women are falsely seen as weak, they are easily seen as victims.
Conversely: men are seen as possessing hyperagency. This means that people think they are more capable then they really are. This causes them many problems in life that women don't face. One of those problems is the difficulty people have seeing men as victims.
the entire reason this trial is happening is to determine if Clancy *had agency* when she was killing her children. nobody involved with the trial is disputing whether she committed the crime - even Lindsay herself admits she did.
the reason that the armchair detectives on tik-tok assume Lindsay is innocent is because they seem to be working from a gender-based bias about women's agency in general. there reasons, in aggregate, seems to be something like "the only way a woman would do something this horrific is if she had no agency"
i highly doubt that had a man with, say, PTSD behaved in the exact same way that these same detectives would be rallying to support him.
the *also* explains the recurring conspiracy theories about Patrick being the real killer - Lindsay , being a woman, *must* have been framed or manipulated because again - a woman cannot possibly have enough agency to knowingly kill her children.
my problem with this is that Lindsay behaviour contains many examples that suggest she *did* in fact have agency at the time - which is why the case is being prosecuted in the first place, rather than being pleaded out.
this whole situation is a perfect microcosm for highlighting the sexist gender-myths that are so insidiously pervasive throughout, like, every culture ever since time began.
talking about this is incredibly taboo though, especially with women's advocates who's core philosophy and world-view essentially doubles down on male hyperagency and female hypoagency, and then uses that as a lens to interpret the world.
And where did you get yours? Were you part of the investigative team?
Right you are, Aaron S. The Chinese have also used TikTok effectively to convince us to stand down on fossil fuels (while they and India continue to pollute away) and to scare the gormless "young uns" about AI and data centers so that they can take over the world.
Are we too stupid to live? Maybe.
Someone who's been there: https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/05/ssris-lindsay-clancy-and-me/
People don’t say the stuff they do in-person, that they do, online. Choose your reality.
Exactly. The cure is simple. Go outside
I say the same things online as I do in person.
I'm gonna be writing something deeper on this but think of these points.
1. never before in modern American history has a woman who murdered her children become a martyr and a hero for so many women - mostly liberal but not all.
2. Not Susan Smith, not Andrea Yates. What changed? The Great Feminization where women were put in power and group dynamics have changed everything, from Hollywood to "woke" to this trial.
3. Mass hysteria + Me Too = women as eternal victims both empowered and in need of rescuing.
4. She's pretty and maybe that doesn't matter but none of the other famous moms were like protagonists in a Lifetime movie. They don't just love her. They see themselves in her. Project themselves onto her.
5. She systematically executed her three children in the same state that just ruled a woman can have an abortion even in the later part of the pregnancy.
6. Why do they see the kids as oppressors? Because men are the oppressors and they shot their wad into them, oppressing them.
These are SCARY SCARY times.
She is not attractive, physically or otherwise.
We are sick and lost.
I think she looks scary as hell.
“Black eyes, like a doll’s eyes.”
She's overly drugged up at her trial. Don't judge her looks based on her spacey stares at the trial.
She could look like Sydney Sweeney and I would find her repulsive.
Yesterday someone called into WABC NYC talk radio and made an interesting comment. She’s had several practitioners prescribing her many medications and none of the practitioners checked to see what the other practitioners prescribed. Her brain may be fried at this point. The health industry like other industries is dysfunctional in many ways.
Mass hysteria in pink. Think about the responsibilities these deluded gals are rejecting -- can they sign for credit, a ballot, take a Juror's Oath, a naturalization oath, an oath of office, if they can just wig out and violate all with impunity because of aggrieved feelings? Are these pinksters responsible enough to be free?
Repeal the 19th Amendment.
No
Reminds me of a prankster who put up posters stating "Mohammad was right about women"
Beauty standards must have slipped while I was selfishly occupied by a 50 year relationship.
In a world where Lindsey and Luigi are considered hot and random conditions from the DSM are considered good reasons to excuse the gruesome strangulation of ones own children one has to wonder where all the adults have gone.
It's not about adults vs children. It's normal vs deranged. It's good vs. evil.
Well done Sasha! I look forward to the full article. Don’t forget this woman is in a wheelchair and likely garners (maybe even subconscious) empathy.
She is in that wheelchair because of her own choices!
Of course! I have no empathy for her but others are easily swayed.
If you were able to survey Lindsey’s supporters, I think you would find very few who have happy healthy marriages with children. I think you’ll find she garnered support as a proxy. Failed marriages and grudges against the fathers of their children for a lack of support.
Maybe, but their mere presence is an unsightliness which civilized people shouldn't have to bear.
At this moment I can imagine how Eisenhower would have felt if he had ordered the townspeople of Ordruf to inspect the concentration camp, they had, and had been unbothered by what they discovered.
At least the mayor and his wife had the good taste to commit suicide that evening.
Disagree. We need them. The police had it completely wrong on Karen Read.
The crowd will get it wrong from time to time but we need to tolerate them for the few times they get it right. Karen Read became a national story b/c of her supporters. It uncovered massive police corruption. 10 police officers resigned or took early retirement.
Agree. Unsightly. But a necessary evil. Natural check on the system.
Completely agree! Watched and followed the Karen Reid trial(s) too and Boston seemed to be a cesspool of police corruption, but we cannot rid ourselves of all police.
“We’re a culture that doesn’t forgive, but quickly excuses”
I don’t know exactly what this means either but these are prophetic words. My guess is that we as a culture writ large are becoming morally bankrupt.
If not a return to God, and specifically, to the Christian God who demands forgiveness, love of Him and love of each other - can our society truly heal. All else is shifting sand.
Strong close - I’m right there with you. It feels like we’ve lost our way and there’s no near term path back.
“We’re a culture that doesn’t forgive, but quickly excuses. I don’t know what it means, nor do I understand how this case became a such a rallying cry for — something? What, exactly? How can “mental defect” have a lobby? What’s happening to people?”
It's scarier when you realize it isn't just white mothers. The killer of Iryna Zarutska? "Must be mental health issues! No prison for him!" It's an excuse used all the time now for anyone with a reasonable score on the intersectional hierarchy scale.
Meanwhile, for normal people like me with mental health issues? We are expected to keep covered up at all times and just struggle through life. A bit of depression while dating? Women will think the absolute worst of you. This woman? Support and celebration. It's so (ironically) depressing.
Sasha, I love your Substack and you often make great points. But the so-called "Great Feminization" has become an excuse to blame women for everything and demean many female leaders in our society and the world who are unhinged leftist ideologues but are just toiling away everyday doing their job. As for the crazy pink brigade, please check out Holly Mathnerd's take. She's a mathematics expert and statistician who as far as I can see has the only truly objective take on this Clancy saga.
Matt, I suggest you check out her article on this too, if you're doing research on this case/phenomena.
Personally, I never liked true crimes stories. Crime fiction and mysteries, otoh, are something I can devour. The Clancy saga is tragic and horrific but I also can't wait till the news cycle move on to something else.
"blame women"
not all women have lost their marbles over this case, but the ones who have are all women. Make of that what you will. I know I do.
Well I’m just glad to finally see “Not All” applies to women too. For too long, men could defend themselves on matters of violence and rape but every time a female nut job does something bad she becomes the representative of “women”. So we’re getting somewhere at last.
Apparently 2 out of 3 of the men were prepared to acquit Ms Clancy. The whole case is just horrific.
But no men, that I'm aware of, are out there taking selfies with the defense attorney in their stupid pink shirts and switching on the ring light to make TikToks with stupid bird hands and empty eyes.
Where can I find the piece you are suggesting?
Here’s the specific piece I was referring to about “women”:
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/i-had-the-effing-denominator?
For the record she also did deep dive into the case itself.
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/the-axioms-of-motherhood?
That first article is probably one of the best pieces I’ve read about this entire thing. Social media is absolutely destroying us as people, I caught myself doing the same thing as the author and thinking negatively of women as a whole because of this stuff. Like the author I also pride myself on not doing this group think nonsense but with social media it’s just so easy to slip into it.
Thanks for linking the articles. Really well written and great perspective. I will probably subscribe to her. Love her POV.
One of the best ideas I heard this week was suggesting to the jury that they can't let her get away with it just because she's hot.
She’s not hot
It's not about if she's actually hot or not, it's about activating the jury's internal hatred of women considered more attractive than they are.
Whatever works (which it didn't, apparently). She murdered her children in cold blood. She should be in prison, even if it's a mental health institution. I don't understand how it's not clear that she is using the insanity defense to excuse what she did. She had presence of mind enough to plan the whole thing, to take a call from her husband and calmly give him another errand to make sure she had time to finish. Yes, insane to you and I, but not to a calculated murderer.
When you squint just right. Definitely a striking woman.
This woman is not hot. She has a man face.
Spot on except for the ‘she’s attractive’ part. She is not.
Appreciate you Sasha, as always. I have followed you for a few years now. You are a voice of reason. Love to you and your pups, also.
American society has been excusing bad behavior and promoting victim mentality for years now. Even though I’ve come to expect it, it’s utterly shocking to me that so many are calling for “justice” for the woman who methodically and viciously killed her three babies, instead of being enraged on behalf of the babies themselves. What have we become?
We ve got the same thing with luigi mangione. The guy allegedly kills somebody in cold blood and is being viewed as a hero. It’s not all that new though. We ve seen it before, most notably with Charles Manson. Others don’t come to mind right away, but it would be interesting if people could point out similar situations, were killers get hero/cult like followings.
Because of Tik Tok and social media in general. Yates and other cases didn’t have the social media popularity like criminal cases do now. Most woman are on Tik Tok also. Woman have become more selfish and likes the victim role. I’m a woman myself and see this and it’s terrifying. The group think of woman is becoming the norm. Also abortion until Birth has become legal in many more states and now it’s not rare it’s if I don’t want kids or can’t handle them just kill them in the womb. The sad thing is the woman supporting her gets all the news from Tik Tok arm chair lawyers instead of watching her actual trial. They are also bringing their children to protest and “support”. The 3 babies brutally killed by someone who is supposed to be safe and love them unconditionally are not even being mentioned. Victimhood has become a norm for woman.
What were the theories being discussed on Social Media, and were they discussed in the jury room? In other words, is this another example of liability protection for social media that should be reversed?
Who quickly excuses? Pathetic losers who have no empathy or moral grounding.
What’s three more dead children in a society that has no value for them. Ninth month abortions. Who cares. Thousands of trafficked children in the US of A. Who cares. Children in inner cities that can’t read or do math up to the modest standards of what it takes in society to get ahead. Who effin cares.
It. Is. Sickening. And, an outrage.
It shows just how morally corrupt our society has become. There was a copycat murder this week in Illinois where a mother killed her 2 yr old in the exact same manner as Clancy killed her. The news reports indicate that the mother was heavily invested in the Clancy murders. A society that can’t punish someone who was not insane is morally bankrupt.
I don't understand how anyone can disparage the reality of post partum and medication induced psychosis.
Millions of moms have not killed their kids as they dealt with postpartum depression and the ones that did kill their kids got convicted of murder.
But some have, and so have some men. Medication-induced psychosis affects men and women, and can lead to murder. It isn't unhinged to realize that people can do terrible things while insane. And if you are unfortunate to live with someone who goes in and out of psychotic states, the Lindsay Clancy story isn't that strange. Feeling compassion for the murderer does not mean that a person lacks compassion for the victims. It means one realizes how fragile sanity is, and how if we truly want to protect people from future crimes, we need to be more honest and careful with regards to medications.
If we want to protect people from future crimes we put away people who murder their own children and toss away the key.
She turned the kids heads away from her as she strangled them so she and they wouldn’t see each other. Clancy was fully conscious.
There are TicTokers and protesters who claim Clancy was unconscious when she killed her children? They're nuts to believe that.
Conscious does not necessarily mean sane.
This issues isnt “ disparaging “ anything.
Its the treatment of her as if she is a victim or even s martyr. She is neither.
She is either a morally bankrupt murderer or she is legally insane.
In either case society writ large either punishes her as justice or pity her and then institutionalize her.
We dont lionize her, hold her up as some representation of a failed system or hold vigils for her.
No excuse
Clancy was insane. So would be this person in Illinois that you mention. Sane people don't kill their children.
Clancy is evil not insane. Evil people kill their children. Contemptible people make excuses for them.
Good or evil and sane or insane pertain to two different matters.
Good or evil pertains to the morality of a person's actions. Sane or insane pertains to whether a person's actions are based on an ability to accurately understanding reality in the presence of information that would allow most people to do so.
We conclude that Clancy is evil because she exhibited a propensity to act in a way that is horribly morally wrong. She is insane because she was unable to act in accordance with the reality that there was no good in killing her children and almost no one with the information she had would conclude otherwise.
Sane people simply never kill their children. There is no rational thought process that can lead them to conclude that the benefits of doing so exceed the costs.
Under this bilateral test of yours no one can be convicted of murder for killing a family member. You have arbitrarily declared them “insane”.
That is irreconcilable with reality. Evil morally bankrupt people kill. They somehow rationalize it. Including family members.
To the average person they must be “insane” but are they “legally insane”?
There is a huge difference between our perception and sense vs the legal standard.
I wasnt in the courtroom, have heard none of the evidence as it was presented ( the opinions and views of court watchers is useless.. they have some kind of agenda since they are being paid to provide commentary).. as such I cant say and wont act like I know
That being said the blanket .. she has to be insane since she did it… is unsound.
not insane, Not even close, She planned this out, insane people don't plan they just act. John Wayne Gacy tortured his victims before he killed them and then ate their flesh, He tried the insanity defense and was rejected. Thank god the prisoners he was incarcerated with dealt him the justice that he deserved.
Hmm...
All I know, and I know it without a doubt. If that was a straight white man sitting there after doing that to his kids, he'd have been found guilty in less than an hour. The unequal lenses and treatment are destroying everything.
If Jeffrey Dahmer was sane enough for a regular prison, then anyone else.
Just a question since I thought the same thing as you but…does it matter that she claims to have had postpartum psychosis which men can’t get from the pregnancy? Thanks in advance in case you reply.
I mean, there are definitely some really horrible feelings that can happen. I suffered through pp depression myself, but those are not feelings that would allow a mom to very slowly strangle 3 kids. We would more likely kill ourselves. And if we lived, as soon as that psychosis had been managed, we'd try again every day because we couldn't live with ourselves.
Thank you for a truly human comment.
You know this without a doubt, do you? How do you explain this one? Was he gay? His wife stayed with him, so I doubt it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dad-who-killed-son-found-not-criminally-responsible-1.523409
1 judge. From Canada. The leftist virtue signal of the planet at the moment.
This is sadly a foreseeable consequence with the idiotic defense of "He didn't know any better," which we see all the time when it comes to specific demographics raping women. Once you start justifying WHY somebody did something instead of asking IF they did it, you're already on the slippery slope.
I think maybe it's time to consider that we need professional jury members. At least then we can ensure that people are sane, know the law, and have a way to hold them accountable for illogical rulings.
That "why" question is at the root of the concept of "hate crimes." It doesn't matter why someone commits a crime. It matters IF they commit a crime.
Amen.
Professional jury members? That will not go well. Who will train them? Who will accredit the trainers? Who will ensure the "profession" is not ideologically stacked? And there would be the Professional Jurors Union (the dreaded PJU) to contend with.
You might be surprised to know that mediators are already a thing and are widely used.
I'd rather randomly choose 12 pre-vetted, competent jurors than pick names out of the phone book.
And Mediation Capture is a real issue in the mediation industry at many levels.
Pre-vetted by whom? Based on what criteria? I've sat on juries: a a random jury of one's peers is the worst way to reach a verdict, except for all the others (apologies, Mr. Churchill).
I'm imagining all sorts of tests providing clear indication that the juror understands a specific set of laws that would qualify one to serve on specific cases. The jurors are then randomly selected from all eligible people. Any American could take the tests.
Seems better than ultimately deciding cases based on the identity of the people in the trial.
I’m all for AI at this point.
Victimhood ideology.
Exactly. She's making it all about her instead of the innocent children that she brutally murdered.
Her attorney said she “grieves the loss” of them. Loss!!! They weren’t lost! She killed them!! I just can’t get over that incredibly offensive way of putting it.
I agree with needing professional jury members. It's terrifying to have 12 people who don't know the law and rely on emotions rather than logical thinking decide if someone is guilty or not.
So another opportunity for the "elite managerial class" to rule us? No thanks, let's think of a better solution. Like gut public education and start over. Like fix our culture. Not easy. Not quick. Very necessary.
I see what you're saying, but gutting the entire education system, starting over, and fixing our culture is a whole lot more work than throwing the names of mediators into a hat and drawing out 12 of them.
So you havent had enough of "experts"?!
Have you ever been in a mediation? I have.
No thanks to more "experts".
Remember, Fauci is The Science; ~90% of climate scientists agree! Etc. Etc.
I'm writing up something about this for tomorrow! All I know is that "A jury of my peers" doesn't include people who can't process logic or who will vote based on the skin color of the trial participants.
You prefer a jury driven by class consciousness?
Over people who will never vote me not guilty because of the color of my skin or my genitals? Hell yes.
So we know why all but one of the jury members were favoring a not guilty verdict?
Obviously, there was something about the elements of the crimes that Clancy was charged with that the jurors (except maybe one) concluded didn't match with the facts of the case.
Or maybe they wanted to go home and start the Labor Day weekend.
That was my experience the one time I did jury duty.
Or that. 🙂
Why are we doing this?! She already admitted killing the children, we should be debating life in prison or life in a mental ward.
I am with you. I do believe that the drugs prescribed certainly had something to do with it. Even conceding that, she must be locked up either in a mental ward or jail. She murdered the most dependent people on earth, children. She murdered the people who most trusted her. She murdered innocents.
I know if I woke up one day and they told me I murdered my children, I would beg that the state kill me. I would offer no defense and ask for the death penalty.
Bring back the mental hospitals.
That the jury couldn’t compromise on a verdict is quite something. If eleven wanted to let her just “walk” . . .
She wanted so much to die. We should let her
Sadly, "life in a mental ward" is not a sentence that the justice system can impose. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal. After that, it's up to the (highly untrustworthy) mental health bureaucracy to decide whether the perp stays confined or not.
Because the prosecutor's office wanted to take it to trial. It's that simple.
An insanity plea should increase, not decrease, the required incarceration. Lindsey Clancy should never be allowed to pledge a civil oath of adult responsibility for anything, ever again. She might reoffend and that thought is utterly heinous.
When law and order breaks down, vigilantes appear. First, solo, then in groups, aka militias.
Glen Reynolds argues persuasively that the justice system's real purpose is to protect criminals from the spontaneous justice of the populace.
This is my concern. The whole point of justice system is to provide a more organized and impartial justice. When that fails, of course people will eventually take things into their own hands. I'm not saying they shouldn't - - sometimes Justice really does need to prevail - - but rather it's reprehensible that the idiots who pretend to be our elites brought us to this position.
We are so inured to the current system, we lose track of the fact that the government only exists at our pleasure. Everybody should read the constitution once a year, it's not very long.
This! Clancy has clearly shown an inability to sufficiently control urges to harm people. Society needs to be protected from her specifically.
Also, to the extent reasonable, she should be dealt with in a way that projects a disincentive for other people to harm people.
The problem is that this instance of murder is just another example of our new found inability to keep innocents protected in this country. Just look at all of the miscreants and repeat offenders who are given a pass time after time by judges and DAs for rape, stabbings, murder, ad nauseum. And they are given these passes simply because of their status as 'oppressed'. We are in deep, deep trouble.
David Carmichael, who murdered his son while under the influence of SSRIs and got off because of his mental state, explains what he was thinking:https://www.madinamerica.com/2023/05/ssris-lindsay-clancy-and-me/
Thank you for the link.
It seems like we can’t agree on basic facts anymore. I don’t know if this is a partisan thing—objectively it can’t be, but it also doesn’t need to make sense. The supporters are also there to talk about their own trauma, supporting her as part of their story in a weird narcissistic moment where they are heard about when they struggled. Had Saad’s book, Suicidal Empathy might need a sequel
I saw Trump live, maybe not up close like you did, but I certainly didn't conclude what you did about his mental state. :) Nor would I agree with it now. Pretty subjective analysis. However, I agree with the rest of the sentiment. She planned it, she knew it was wrong. That seems enough for me. Yes, she might also be crazy, so if I can be assured she will never be set free, put her anywhere you want.
What’s happening, Matt? The best answer I can give is that modern life is increasingly resembling Dostoevsky’s The Possessed.
Matt - a thought experiment. Assume all circumstances and actions apply, except Clancy strangles 3 of her neighbors children on the direction of voices. Would there be a lobby of support? And if not, why? I think she’s insane and deserves to locked up for life. How can she be rehabilitated? And is that an outcome consistent with justice. She brutally killed 3 children, one at a time. With each murder taking minutes. So hard to even contemplate but society must. What is justice?
it was my understanding that she didn't mention the voices until AFTER she'd murdered the children. Who knows if she heard them or if it was another stratagem.
I'm a politically conservative woman. I'm also clinical psychologist who has worked with people with psychosis, bipolar, and postpartum depression. I haven't watched the trial, but I can say from decades of experience as a psychotherapist that people who are deeply depressed truly begin to think and "reason" in a way that they don't recognize is wrong or irrational. This is why it looks "selfish" to everyone else when a person commits suicide, but I've had clients who genuinely believe everyone else will be happier if they kill themselves and stop burdening them, that it will be a favor to their family. That fact that everyone would actually be devastated is obvious to everyone thinking normally, but it's not obvious to the deeply depressed person in that moment. I've also talked with women with postpartum depression who thought "dying together" with the baby was the maternal thing to do, not a homicidal act. That's how bizarre and distorted the thinking becomes with severe depression that doesn't even have psychotic features. Lay people have a hard time wrapping their heads around it and judge people without understanding unless they've experienced this.
Add psychosis and the risk is much higher. This does NOT mean that the person doesn't recognize real things or can't reason at all, but it's even more distorted because now an aspect of unreality also seems real to them, e.g. the voice that is talking to them that no one else can hear seems as real as the voices of their loved ones or therapist, and so that voice also has influence. Unfortunately, if no one knows to ask, no one knows that other voice is talking to them.
I'm not an expert on legal definitions of "insanity" but I have sympathy for the depressed and psychotic people who have temporarily "lost" their mind and do horrible things in that state. I appreciate the legal dilemma for a society on what to do about that. In my mind, it's similar to whether and how to punish someone who killed someone because they fell asleep or had a seizure when driving their car versus someone who chose to drink and drive and killed someone.
What I have read makes me wonder why Lindsay Clancy wasn't hospitalized or at the very least, partial hospitalization (hospital during the day, home at night) where mental health providers are assessing symptoms daily. When I work with a client who is suicidal or psychotic, I explain the dangers to the spouse/parents, educate about further warning signs, and instruct them to never leave the person alone for long, to not let them be in charge of their own medication, and to remove items that can be dangerous like knives and guns. If people seem to suddenly "improve", that can actually be a warning sign of something ominous. If Mr. Clancy wasn't given these kinds of instructions and education, that's a problem.
How is intentionally killing your three children similar to a drunk driver asleep at the wheel or even some one having a medical emergency?
This exposed a lot of the hypocrisy of feminism.
The game from the defense was to admit to the killing but claim she was insane and try to get into a mental institution and then scam the shrinks to claim she’s all better and get released. Massachusetts being completely corrupt it was a good plan. Otherwise she goes to prison and never gets out.
This juror better go into the juror protection program because the feminazis are coming for his head.
I don't think corruption has much to do with it in this case.
Techno Fog (The Reactionary on Substack) did a post about the trial before jury deliberations started. Massachusetts is one of the few states, and maybe the only one, where an defense of mental incapacity forces the prosecution to prove criminal culpability (basically, knowledge that what you did was wrong at the time you were acting and doing it anyway) rather than the defense having to prove it as would be the case if you claimed self-defense.
His over all point was criminal culpability doesn't mean the person can't have mental issues or even require ongoing treatment because what matters is a demonstration by actions and statements that you are acting in a rational manner and with a knowledge that what you are doing is wrong (acting guilty, more or less). He pointed to the example of Andrea Yates who drowned her kids back in 2001 as being a murderer who presents very differently from Clancy. Yates had attempted suicide multiple times, self-mutilated, and reported wild hallucinations prior to the murders. Clancy had none of those issues.
I only meant corruption after the fact of Clancy being sent to a mental institution rather than a prison. Once there the defense can shrink shop to find someone or someone’s to come up with the prescribed diagnosis. That would be easy to do in corrupt Massachusetts.
Right there with you Matt.
To me the jury is one thing.
What really freaks me out is the hero worship so many women are heaping onto this mass murderer.
It’s like she conquered Rome.
TDS has reached another peak, convict her is “conservative”, Trump is somehow conservative so she must be a hero.
It’s so incredibly fucked I don’t know how to parse it?
Should progressive women not have to right to vote?
Why restrict the restriction to progressives?
Prescient comment Matt regarding forgiveness and excuses. It's been quite apparent for some time now that one side of the political aisle regularly excuses their own behavior. This is two sets of rules; one for your opposition and with this, a separate set for your allies.
Yes, declaring Trump not guilty by reason of insanity was “different” because it would be helping Trump, and that’s the only principle Matt’s lib interlocutor cared about.
And that same side of the political divide never forgives, especially those in their ranks who leave that side.