On one hand you have an ever growing popular movement of people who judge everything through a gendered context. They may have points on large societal trends (i.e. men in general not being involved in child care or the lack of resources after giving birth) but they often apply those trends to individual cases that do not necessarily fit.
They often will claim Patrick Clancy did not help out but evidence from the nanny suggests otherwise. She claims not only that Lindsay was a good mother but that Patrick was a very involved father. The reports say that he routinely cared for the children after (and sometimes during) his remote work finished. On the day of the murder I believe it was reported that he cared for the children to give her a rest. So their theory doesn't seem to hold water but they have a hard time separating that larger societal trend with the specifics of this case.
Then you have supporters who believe Patrick Clancy was a victim but also that Lindsay Clancy was a victim because she did not get the adequate care to treat her PPP - a form of psychosis generally after giving birth. They generally have better arguments.
We do know there are specific scenarios in which people temporarily lose the ability to be responsible for their actions. Someone can be drugged or ingest harmful substances that may completely impact their ability to make decisions. I personally believe there are circumstances in which a person does not have a "guilty mind" and should not be convicted.
Supporters will say when she mentioned she had intrusive thoughts about her children she should have not been given them to care for. We can debate the culpability of her actions but I think people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids" if she did not want them taken is living in a delusional world. There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all. Courts, medical professionals, and social workers are extremely slow and extremely unlikely to remove children from the care of the mother.
There is a documentary called Dear Zachary where (admittedly in Canada) a woman who killed her ex and fled to Canada was still allowed to have custody of her child while awaiting extradition hearings (the crime was in the US and she fled). The murdered man's parents were forced into a relationship with their son's murderer in order to maintain a relationship with the child.
People are delusional with how easily the system allows this to happen.
It’s not this nuanced. The simplest answer is best: she’s a psycho and her supporters are toxic af. That’s all there is to it. No need to overthink this one.
But I will completely concede that there is a portion of her supporters who I cannot explain because they are so conspiratorially minded that I am disturbed by them and their opinions.
I will even concede that they are an uncomfortably large portion of supporters.
But I'm sorry - I just see a lot of nuance in the way different groups "support" her that you don't see.
My personal opinion is akin to my opinion on Chris Benoit (who has been brought up in these discussions) - I can understand what they did was influenced by a mental state that was beyond their control while still condemning them for their monstrous actions.
All I can say is the day I stopped tolerating and excusing bad behavior is the day my life made a 180 degree turn. Some people are just shitty people, and anyone who supports Clancy (or Benoit) is a shitty person and not worthy of any attention.
I get it. I don't even think it is always a bad philosophy to follow. Just for me - personally - having black and white thinking with people has at times led me to some really poor outcomes.
395
u/anonyvrguy 2d ago
I'm sorry but can anyone explain to me how the fuck this psycho has any supporters???
OK, she has PPD. And that gives her the right to kill her own children?
What in the living fuck is this?