Honestly, writing this post took me forever for a few reasons. First, it was the nature of the crime. Three young children – ages of 5 years, 3 years and 8 months – were strangled in their home basement with exercise bands, apparently by their mother while their father was picking up some medication and dinner. Regardless of who did the crime, it is a heinous one and the criminal should rot in prison and then burn in hell…

Lindsay Clancy was the person accused of this crime. The day of the events she tried to kill herself, but fate had another thing for her. Instead of dying, she ended up on a wheelchair, paralyzed from the sternum and down. The trial started three years after the events, giving time to recover from the physical injuries so she could face trial. During those three years, Patrick Clancy, her husband and father of the killed kids, had moved on, divorced her and remarrying a year before the trial began.

Then the trial started and I was blindsided by the reactions caused by the case. Her lawyer basically admitted she killed the kids when pleading NGRI (Non Guilty by Reason of Insanity). Now the the trial was not about if she did it, but if she was of sound mind when she did it…and the reactions blew my mind.

While the proof was presented the public opinion divided mostly between gender lines. Women mostly demanded either a NGRI or a straight non-guilty verdict. The whole reasoning was “she was a great mother, everyone said so” and “she deserves to get the treatment she needs”. Others (like some of my own female relatives), followed and gave validity to dumb social networks theories about how it was Patrick (the husband) who had really killed the kids and then designed a series of complicated coverups. The whole logic was that she was innocent because of her mental health issues…

On the other hand, most men would say guilty right away (especially after the NGRI plea) and many proposed a sentence of either life in a mental institution, a combination of mental institution and jail, or simply jail.

Unfortunately those three options were not available to the jury because of Massachusetts and its laws…

Since Lindsay had a certified mental illness being actively treated, regular jail is not an option. At the same time, state laws do not allow for long-term mental institution internment. NGRI would allow her to be treated, but then she would be re-evaluated every 6 months – eventually walking out free, because the cycle repeats until the committee establishes she is not a danger to society or herself.

The decision was so difficult, it ended on a mistrial. Of the 12 jury members, 11 voted for NGRI, but one single juror simply said “Nah, she is guilty!” and did not change his vote. At the time I wrote this post, some of the 11 NGRI jurors have given interviews to mainstream media, basically doxed the “rogue” juror as a 30-something Black man, and the second trial is in its starting phase. No one knows what will happen in this second trial…

Personally, I want the person who killed those three kids to rot in jail and then their soul to burn forever in whatever version of Hell exists. I do not care if the killer was Lindsay, Patrick, the dog, or the one-arm man – I just want the person to suffer for the rest of their natural lives. But unfortunately, I learned a few things I dislike about people – both online and in real life – plus a few that worry me for the nearby future.

Lessons Learned

People are getting their news on social media. If you are a reporter, run a newspaper, or a social media account, this trial gave you a preview of your professional future. Most people did not follow this trial since the start, but they heard about the trial on social media like Tik Tok or Facebook and suddenly became experts lawmakers, detectives, lawyers, and judges. Lots of dumb theories came out about the timeline, about Patrick clothes, about his personality, how he was as a father, and how she was a neglected depressed mother. None relevant to the case, but entertaining and captivating enough to help creative minds to develop crazy theories.

Women live in an alternate reality. It sounds sexist, but the discussions around the case showed women living in an alternate reality. A reality in which police did a crappy investigation of Patrick (despite video and cell phone triangulation data placing the guy away from the house, giving him a perfect alibi). A reality in which web browser history is not compromising at all. A reality in which Lindsay Clancy either was out of her mind when she made the decision of killing each one of her kids or she did not do it because she was a “good mom”. A reality in which Patrick HAD to be the direct (or indirect) responsible of his kids deaths. Basically, this case showed that a good portion of women in our society are willing to let a serial killer go free if the killer is a woman and a mother, because women cannot do evil…

Women in our society apparently are not as caring as many believed. To me, the most traumatizing thing about this case was the reaction of many women diminishing the raw fact that 3 KIDS WERE KILLED. The discussion centered around women’s medical treatment, how women’s mental health is not recognized as real, how working mothers do not get the help they need from their husbands – anything BUT the cold fact that 3 kids were murdered in their home.

Most men want justice for the kids. Unlike women, who centered their argument around “Justice for Lindsay” arguments, guys were mostly about “Justice for the Kids”. I heard and read many statements by men, hoping for the culprit to face any type of earth based justice – life long reclusion in either a mental institution, prison, or a combination of both. Some even suggested prison-based justice – you know, when prisoners become agents of Divine Justice and arrange an emergency meeting between the murderer and their creator.

Less people will be willing to serve as jurors. In this case, the media basically opened the curtain of what happens behind the door during jury deliberations. Since the mistrial verdict, we learned a single Black male juror was the holdout juror. The guy’s past history has been exposed, he and his family had been harassed and threatened by strangers, and he has even received threats of possible charges related to HIS JURY SERVICE. Now, who the fuck would want to be a juror in the future? Who will oppose a majority group of jury members because he / she interprets the proof presented in the case differently than them? Would you bend under the pressure?

This case could have created a very, very fucked up precedent. Imagine for a second that Lindsay had been declared NGRI because of post partum depression and / or bipolar disorder (the two conditions mentioned in the case). That would have opened the door for EVERY SINGLE CASE of murder to be reopened and then looked under the lens that if the killer had a mistreated condition, then they should be considered NGRI. The guy suffering from PTSD? NGRI. Schizophrenia? NGRI. Depression? NGRI.

Where (and how) do we draw a line? Does this only work for women? What happens if you are a trans school shooter? We know that currently, if you are a guy, IT DOES NOT MATTER – you face life in an institution or street justice regardless if you have a mistreated or God forbid, an undiagnosed mental condition.

Because we all know men do not suffer from untreated mental health issues…