This case demands something social media seems incapable of giving it: nuance.
I’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy case, and my wife and I have talked about this case more times than I can count.
Because I’m going to tell you something that apparently you’re not allowed to say anymore:
Two things can be true at the same time.
Postpartum depression is real.
Postpartum psychosis is real.
Women can experience intrusive thoughts, hallucinations, depression, anxiety and serious mental health problems after having children.
I believe that.
I also believe our society does a terrible job supporting mothers after childbirth. We expect women to have a baby, recover, take care of the child, take care of the house, maintain their marriage, go back to work and somehow act like nothing happened.
We need to take that seriously.
But none of that automatically answers the question sitting at the center of this case.
Was Lindsay Clancy legally responsible when she killed her three children?
That’s what the jury has to decide.
And after hearing some of the evidence presented by the prosecution, I don’t think this case is nearly as simple as some people on the internet want it to be.
Empathy Is Not The Same Thing As Innocence
I understand why so many women feel empathy for Lindsay Clancy.
Some mothers hear about intrusive thoughts and recognize something they experienced themselves.
Some understand what severe postpartum depression can feel like.
Some know what it’s like to feel overwhelmed, exhausted and mentally unlike themselves after having a child.
That empathy is understandable.
But there’s a gigantic difference between saying:
“I understand how serious postpartum mental illness can be.”
And saying:
“Therefore Lindsay Clancy cannot be responsible for killing her children.”
Those aren’t the same statement.
Three children died.
So our responsibility isn’t to pick a team based on emotion.
Our responsibility is to look at the evidence and determine what was happening inside Lindsay Clancy’s mind when those children were killed.
The Question Isn’t Whether She Was Mentally Ill
One of the most important things about this trial is that both sides reportedly acknowledge that Lindsay was suffering from serious mental illness.
That’s not really the dispute.
The question is whether her mental condition reached the point where she could not understand that what she was doing was wrong or could not control her actions.
That’s a completely different question.
The jury was given several possible outcomes, including different degrees of criminal responsibility depending on what they believe about her mental state.
And I think that’s appropriate.
Because mental illness isn’t an on-and-off switch.
Somebody can be mentally ill and still understand right from wrong.
Somebody can be severely mentally ill and still make decisions.
And yes, somebody can also become so detached from reality that they are legally incapable of understanding or controlling their actions.
The jury has to determine where Lindsay Clancy was on that spectrum.
The Prosecution’s Evidence Raises Serious Questions
This is where the case becomes difficult for the defense.
According to the prosecution’s argument presented in the transcript, Lindsay’s husband Patrick was sent out of the house to make multiple stops.
Prosecutors argue that created a window of roughly 18 to 20 minutes when Lindsay would be alone with the children.
They say there was evidence of planning.
According to the prosecution, she contacted CVS to make sure medication was available before Patrick went there and then continued to another stop.
The prosecution’s argument is essentially this:
She was making decisions.
She allegedly created the window.
She allegedly selected where this would happen.
She allegedly moved from child to child.
And during that same period, Patrick called home.
Lindsay didn’t initially answer but reportedly called him back.
Patrick testified that she sounded normal enough during that conversation that he had no idea what was happening inside the house.
That’s significant.
Because prosecutors are asking the jury to consider how someone allegedly experiencing a completely uncontrollable psychotic episode could simultaneously function socially well enough to return a phone call and carry on a conversation without alerting her husband that something was terribly wrong.
That doesn’t automatically prove murder.
But it is evidence the jury has to wrestle with.
Then There Is The Question Of The Voice
Lindsay reportedly said she heard a voice telling her she needed to kill her children.
According to the account discussed on my show, she said the voice told her she had to do it then or she wouldn’t have another opportunity and that her children needed to see her in heaven.
She reportedly said:
“Go to God, baby.”
That is horrifying.
But the prosecution raised another important question.
According to testimony summarized in the transcript, Lindsay had undergone extensive mental health treatment and psychiatric hospitalization, yet prosecution experts said she had not previously reported hearing this particular voice.
There were also questions raised about when she said the voice began.
And according to the prosecution’s argument, the voice apparently stopped after the killings.
Again, I’m not telling you what happened inside this woman’s head.
I wasn’t there.
Neither were the people making TikToks declaring her innocent or guilty.
That’s why we have trials.
The Medical Testimony Matters
One of the strongest pieces of evidence discussed against Lindsay came from medical professionals who interacted with her before the killings.
According to the trial summary played on my show, Letitia Dukes treated Lindsay four times in December 2022 and documented anxiety and intrusive thoughts but reportedly did not observe psychosis or mania.
Even more importantly, a psychiatrist who reportedly saw Lindsay the day before the children were killed also did not observe signs of psychosis or mania.
That’s difficult evidence.
These weren’t simply people hired years later to build a prosecution theory.
These were people evaluating her mental condition around the time everything happened.
The defense, however, has argued that Lindsay’s mental health was severely deteriorating, that she repeatedly sought help and that prescription medications contributed to her condition.
Jurors even asked to examine bags containing medication bottles as well as the knife Lindsay allegedly used during her suicide attempt.
So clearly they’re taking that part of the case seriously.
They should.
The Medication Argument Isn’t Simple Either
One thing I don’t like about the public conversation surrounding this case is how people talk about the medications as if the number alone settles everything.
The defense has emphasized that Lindsay had been prescribed numerous medications during her mental health treatment.
But according to prosecutors, she was never taking all of them simultaneously. They argued she was generally taking only two or three at once and had stopped taking most of them weeks before the killings.
The judge reportedly instructed jurors that they could consider whether prescription medication impaired Lindsay’s mental state when determining her criminal responsibility and the appropriate level of any conviction.
That’s exactly the kind of nuance I’m talking about.
Maybe medication played a role.
Maybe postpartum illness played a role.
Maybe those factors significantly diminished her responsibility.
Or maybe the evidence ultimately demonstrates that she still understood exactly what she was doing.
Those possibilities have to be decided by evidence, not sympathy.
Social Media Has Already Picked A Verdict
This is the part that concerns me.
I’ve watched women online rally around Lindsay before the jury has even reached its conclusion.
Some women identify so deeply with the postpartum component of this case that it almost seems impossible for them to separate their own experiences from Lindsay’s actions.
I understand identifying with postpartum depression.
I understand wanting society to take mothers’ mental health more seriously.
I’m with you on that.
But Lindsay Clancy isn’t standing trial for having postpartum depression.
She’s standing trial because three children are dead.
We cannot turn a murder trial into a referendum on whether society adequately supports mothers.
Those are two separate conversations.
And if your personal experience with postpartum depression means Lindsay automatically has to be innocent, you’re no longer evaluating evidence.
You’re projecting your experience onto hers.
The Other Extreme Is Wrong Too
But I also see men and others online going completely in the opposite direction.
They say postpartum psychosis isn’t real.
They say a mother could never lose control of her mind like this.
They say anybody even discussing mental illness is making excuses for murder.
I don’t agree with that either.
There are women who experience severe postpartum psychiatric disorders.
There are people who genuinely become detached from reality.
And there are cases where mental illness can become so severe that somebody does something horrific while operating in a state that most of us cannot comprehend.
That possibility cannot simply be dismissed because the crime is horrific.
That’s why this case is difficult.
If you’re looking for me to tell you Lindsay Clancy was definitely an innocent mother overtaken by psychosis, I can’t tell you that.
If you’re looking for me to tell you she’s definitely an evil, calculating murderer who fabricated everything afterward, I can’t tell you that either.
Not yet.
Three Children Deserve The Truth
There’s something getting lost in all the arguments about Lindsay.
Three children are dead.
They deserve more than hashtags.
They deserve more than viral videos.
They deserve more than people turning their mother’s trial into some larger cultural battle between men and women.
Their deaths deserve the truth.
Maybe the truth is that their mother experienced an unimaginable psychiatric breakdown and completely lost touch with reality.
Maybe the truth is that she was mentally ill but remained capable of understanding and controlling her actions.
Maybe the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes and the appropriate verdict reflects diminished, but not eliminated, criminal responsibility.
That’s what the evidence has to determine.
Let The Evidence Decide
The jury deliberated for two days without reaching a verdict before being dismissed for the weekend.
That doesn’t surprise me.
This is a complicated case.
And complicated cases should make jurors uncomfortable.
They should wrestle with the evidence.
They should question the experts.
They should examine the medications.
They should scrutinize the timeline.
They should ask whether Lindsay was capable of planning.
They should ask whether she understood right from wrong.
They should ask whether the voice she described was genuine evidence of psychosis.
And then they should reach whatever verdict the evidence supports.
Not because they’re mothers.
Not because they’re men.
Not because TikTok decided Lindsay is a victim.
Not because somebody on the internet decided she’s a monster.
Because that’s what justice requires.
I believe postpartum psychosis is real.
I believe mothers need more support.
I believe mental illness can fundamentally alter what somebody thinks, sees and does.
And I also believe three dead children require us to ask the hardest possible questions before removing responsibility from the person who killed them.
Those beliefs aren’t contradictory.
That’s called having enough maturity to understand nuance.
And until this jury comes back with a verdict, I’m going to do something apparently revolutionary in 2026.
I’m going to wait for the evidence to decide.
It's a very complicated case. I'm glad I'm not on the jury. It is impossible to know without a shadow of a doubt what was going on in her head. Where I get lost is thinking about those babies screaming, running and crying and she continued. If you are capable of being in a psychosis so deep that your children's screams can't pull you out, I don't think we can trust you won't have another episode. I have a hard time letting killers off bc they are crazy. If you are that crazy you shouldn't be in society. Either she needs to spend the rest of her life in prison or a mental institution but I don't think being free should be an option.
Dear Sir and commenters:
I did not suffer from postpartum depression nor psychosis. I had only one child in my life. It was a challenge to care for a newborn, take care of a home and family, and go back to work. Plus, at the time, I was married to an Army man and we were stationed far away from family, so when he would be sent out on maneuvers, 2-3 months at a time, I was an only parent taking care of a newborn. Difficult, caused some anxiety and a lil bit of depression. I had my mom to talk to, over the phone only. I may not fully understand the postpartum depression/psychosis women have gone thru, but, I do empathize and feel those women should be cared for professionally and appropriately to assist them in gaining mental stability, to care for their child or children.
Now. The following are my thoughts on mental illness.
I grew up in a household with severe mental illness. My oldest brother was diagnosed as a chronic schizophrenic at around age 14. I was about 12 years old and my younger brother was about 10. We had a pretty normal and stable home life. My dad worked. My mom stayed home and took care of family and home.
My older brothers illness was extreme chaos and physically and mentally debilitating not just for him, but my entire family. Did he ask to be this way? No.
He went thru various stages of the illness…not taking care of himself hygienicly, long hair, not shaving, not changing his clothes, not bathing, pooping in his pants (he was not a baby or toddler). Another stage. Thinking people were out to kill him. Paranoia. He thought our longtime neighbors were trying to kill him. He thought his family was trying to kill him. He thought we were poisoning his food or drink.
He threw tantrums as a man in his 20s and 30s and 40s. Yes. Stomping his feet if he didn’t get his way. Pushing my mom.
My mom was the primary caregiver because she didn’t work, my dad was at work, and myself and younger brother were still in school thru the late 1970s. He held knives up to my mother’s throat. My mom would hide knives and forks. He would find them. He never stabbed her. But scared her immensely. After I started working, I would come home everyday for lunch just to check up on her and make sure she was ok. I called her everyday from work also. One time, he sliced up every wall in the house, except, the bathroom and my room.
Understand this. My brother had been on various COCKTAILS of anti-psychotic medications from age 14, til he died at age 44 (30 years). He had been placed in the State Mental Hospital a few times. He had electro shock treatments. He had psychiatrists (a few over the years). Psychs told my parents when he was 14/15 years old, that he would commit suicide by the time he was 18. He did not. He threatened to rape me. He threatened to kill my younger brother. There were times where my mentally ill brother wore the scary face of Jack Nicholson from the movie The Shining, knife and scary grin on his face telling my brother he was going to gut him. I would stay awake as long as I could to protect and keep my younger brother safe.
My brother had side effects from his antipsychotic medications. Pacing. Pacing. Pacing. Twirling his hair. Drooling. Laughing to himself. HE HAD AUDITORY AND VISUAL HALLUCINATIONS every day of his life from 14-44 years old. The cocktails of meds never got rid of or diminished them. He never killed anyone. He pushed us. He yelled at us. He stomped his feet. He displayed knives, but never harmed us or anyone. We had a dog growing up, his name was Sam, and he was my brothers guardian angel. That is what my mom said. He followed my brother everywhere. At home and when he would walk to the store to buy his cigarettes. Our first family dog Sam died at age 19. We had him since he was 8 weeks old. He is buried at my family home.
My brother passed away in his sleep in 2003, age 44. He never had a girlfriend. He never went on a date. He never had his own children. He only had his family. Some Extended family were afraid of him. Very sad. It hurt my mom that her direct family members and their children (my cousins) avoided him at family functions. But, he was intelligent. He loved to ask questions of family about their family history. He was his own “Geneologist”. By the time he was 6 years old, he could read, write his alphabet, numbers, subtract, add and do some multiplication. He read an entire set of encyclopedias (like 25 of them) when he was about 8 years old. He had a photographic memory. He had great hands. Athletic. He could play basketball like nobodies business. Baskets could be made from ANY distance. Any distance. He could throw a football as good as a professional quarterback. Not kidding. And he was only about 10 years old.
I miss my brother very much. Was I ever scared of him? Yes. Did I hate him? No. I hated what the mental illness did to him and the medications never “fixing” him. I don’t know and I can’t say if doctors failed him. I feel society failed him more than anyone. Do we say it’s ok for those who suffer with mental illness and commit a crime or heinous crime get away with it? No. Absolutely not. But, in some cases, like the Clancy case, how does one know the truth if the person who committed the crime knew or didn’t know what they were doing before, during and after the crime.
If anything, Mrs Clancy needs to be hospitalized for her crime. It is still a crime what she did to her innocent children. She must pay the piper.