Lindsay Clancy is Guilty
The nine-woman, three-man Massachusetts jury dead-locked; the judge declared a mistrial; but Lindsay Clancy is still a murderer.
Even her attorneys do not dispute that, in January, 2023, Clancy, a former labor-and-delivery nurse, murdered her three children in cold blood.
However thousands of activist women have sided with Clancy’s “innocent by reason of insanity” due to postpartum depression defense. (For the record, postpartum depression is treatable.)
Cynically portraying her as “everywoman,” dozens of hyper-emotional left-wing feminists wearing pink T-shirts appeared daily outside the courtroom, fashioning Clancy as a feminist “icon,” and demanding her acquittal.
Those women’s “feelings” deny reality. They reached a conclusion that satisfied their feelings, then rationalized a “validation.”
But the legal test for conviction is “right” vs. “wrong.” Did Clancy know the difference?
After purposefully sending her husband away to ensure his inability to stop her, Clancy strangled their three children to death, one by one. She then attempted to punish herself, but failed at suicide.
Entered in evidence, those facts show that Clancy planned the murders, knew what she was doing, and knew – when she did it – that choking the life out of her children was wrong.
So, under the law, Clancy committed three premeditated murders: she strangled five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan.
Parents, try to imagine killing just one of your children, then a second…and…finally…a third…
Some of Clancy’s feminist supporters blamed the deaths on her husband whose absence Clancy engineered to prevent his interference. If that were even marginally believable, it would have been the central feature of her defense.
One suspects that Clancy’s feminist supporters think that filicide is – or should be – a natural extension of every woman’s “right” to unrestricted abortion on demand.
If/when Clancy is retried, let’s consider what an “innocent by reason of insanity” verdict might mean for other women…
The stakes could be very high for women in general if Clancy is legally let off due to the “hormonal psychosis” alleged by her defense.
Are all women subject to the same or similar murderous or other violent hormonal urges, and should all women be considered potentially dangerous?
One concerned woman, Sana Ebrahimi Ledene, posted this on X:
“If Lindsay Clancy walks on this, every woman in a high-stakes job just got a new target on her back. Female pilot? Cool. Now the first thing people will ask is whether she’s hormonal, postpartum, or one bad night from crashing a plane into a mountain. Female president? You want the nuclear codes in the hands of someone who can snap and then call it ‘a psychosis?’ That’s the door this verdict opens. And it won’t close. If she is not found guilty of murdering those three kids, women don’t get compassion. We get suspicion. Forever. Prosecute her as a murderer, or watch one ‘crazy bitch’ torch the credibility of every woman who still has to prove she can be trusted with other people’s lives.”
A man wrote, “Who’s going to trust a female doctor anymore? For all we know, she could have an episode and kill a patient by prescribing the wrong drug and blame it on her hormones.”
Yet another man commented, “See[ing] the woman killing her kids isn’t the most insane part. The insane part is the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women supporting and making excuses for her killing her kids. It starts making you question any decisions…any and every woman takes.”
Reports have emerged about young men breaking up with girlfriends, even fiancés for expressing support for Clancy’s acquittal. Who wants to partner with a woman who, even by implication, may not be trusted to look out for the safety of her own children?
Frankly, siding with the prosecution in this case is a reasonable litmus test for men choosing partners. After all, on how many other matters is a Clancy supporter capable of assuming facts not in evidence as long as those assumptions match her feelings? And what can happen to a father’s children if a wife can become subject to and then be excused by claiming, as Clancy does, one psychotic “auditory hallucination?”
A jury would have returned a homicidal father’s “guilty” verdict in an hour, regardless of “circumstances.”
The only people at their murder scene who deserve sympathy and God’s grace are Cora, Dawson and Callan.
https://www.pottsmerc.com/2026/09/06/jerry-shenk-lindsay-clancy-is-a-murderer/
