No News Is Bad News. The Clancy Case Should Be Over By Now.

It’s been four days now, and a duly sworn jury, consisting of nine women and three men, is apparently still unable to decide whether murder is still a crime in the state of Massachusetts. 

The jury has told the judge it can’t reach a verdict. Though he’s obligated to send them back to reconsider and continue deliberations a couple of times, it’s unlikely they’ll ever reach a consensus. One juror, an older woman, was clearly frustrated by the judge’s instruction to go back to the jury room. Meanwhile, two younger female jurors reportedly smiled. 

To make matters worse, there’s reason to believe that several of these jurors — the ones who are clearly inclined to let Lindsay Clancy go free, after she murdered her three children — see themselves as part of the larger, deranged TikTok mob that gathers outside the courthouse every day, in support of women’s constitutional right to do whatever they want, without suffering any consequences whatsoever. Particularly if you ever bought into the lies of feminism, it’s one of the more depressing spectacles you will ever see: a mass psychosis, rooted in narcissism, so pervasive it infects everything, even our juries. 

More than a million dollars has been raised for this woman, who executed her own kids. It’s enough to make you rethink the Salem witch trials all these centuries later. Remind me, who were the villains in that story again? Maybe that would be a good topic for a Real History episode at some point.

Until then, here’s a thought experiment — one that, up until very recently in this country’s history, would’ve been extremely straightforward and uncontroversial, albeit very disturbing at the same time. 

Imagine that one day you wake up from a stupor to discover that, while you were not consciously aware, you murdered all of your children. This scenario is, of course, morbidly absurd. The idea that a loving parent could one day just wake up to find out that, against their will, they’ve executed their whole family is preposterous. But this is the scenario that Clancy’s defense attorney and her legion of female groupies want us to imagine. 

They insist that Clancy was indeed a good and loving mother who was driven by forces outside of her control to systematically slaughter her children. They tell us that this could happen to any of us. There is ample and conclusive evidence that this scenario didn’t actually occur. It’s clear that Clancy intentionally murdered her children. There was no psychotic stupor. But, for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that something like this kind of murderous daze were to actually happen. So put yourself, as impossible as it is, into this fictional nightmare scenario. You’ve just killed your children, through no conscious fault of your own. What do you do next?

Here are a few steps you’d immediately take without any doubt. First, you’d try to revive your children, even if it’s clearly a hopeless situation. This would be the first inevitable step for any loving parent who suddenly regained consciousness to find themselves in the middle of this kind of horrifying scene. Next, you’d call the police and explain the urgency of the situation to the 911 operator. That’s a given. And then, once you were confident that first responders were on the way, you’d either kill yourself with ten times the rage and determination that your unconscious psychotic evil self had used to kill your children, or you’d remain alive to face justice. And by “face justice,” I mean you’d beg the court to give you the harshest possible penalty. 

You’d forgo a trial entirely, not only because you wouldn’t contest your guilt, but also for the sake of sparing the spouse whose life you ruined. You would not drag your spouse and your family through a long, highly publicized trial — one where your spouse would be demonized and become the target of conspiracy theories by hordes of retarded feminist TikTok zombies. 

You would simply plead guilty and go to prison in shame and repentance. No loving parent would even want to go on living a normal life out in society after having done something like this. You wouldn’t fight for your freedom. You wouldn’t desire freedom at all. You wouldn’t desire anything but to crawl into the darkest hole in jail and die as quickly as possible. A loving parent, on the other side of a catastrophe like this, could not ever find joy or purpose in their life again. A loving parent would hate themselves far more than any stranger could possibly hate them, and desire to see themselves punished far more than any of us could desire it. 

But Lindsay Clancy, strangely enough, did not take any of these actions after she murdered her children. On every point, she did the opposite. Around the time she was committing the homicides, she took a phone call from her husband, whom she had sent away on an errand — demonstrating, of course, that she was not out of her mind at the time. After the murders were completed, she did not call the police. She did not attempt to revive her children or contact emergency services. As the prosecutor pointed out in closing arguments, she didn’t even pick them up and put them in their beds, at least giving them some symbolic shred of dignity in death. 

Instead, she left them facedown on the basement floor — this “loving mother.” Then, having strangled her three children to death in a methodical, systematic, violent and determined manner — one by one, with exercise bands that collapsed their airways and forced their eyes to bulge in their heads — Clancy suddenly became extremely tentative and apprehensive in her alleged “suicide attempt” that followed. Armed with a knife, Clancy somehow managed to cause only superficial injuries to her wrists, when she was supposedly trying to end her life. And for her grand finale, Clancy jumped out of a second-story window. Yes, a second-story window. Short of, I don’t know, shooting yourself with a Nerf gun, it would be hard to imagine a more cartoonish, ineffective, and unserious way to kill yourself. 

But that’s how Lindsay Clancy attempted to leave this world — or so we’re told. Immediately after she methodically murdered her own children, applying the necessary force while she determinedly snuffed the life out of one child, the next, then the next, Clancy transformed into a bumbling idiot who simply couldn’t figure out a way to die. 

And then, for several years, up to this very day, she has done everything in her power to reduce the amount of time she has to spend in prison. She hired the fanciest defense attorney money could buy and fought for her freedom. Her defense attorney said multiple times during deliberations that she was “nervous” and “scared” about the verdict. What would a loving mother be nervous or scared about? You’re only nervous or scared about a verdict if you’re hoping desperately that you won’t be found guilty. But why would a loving mother, who knows what she did, have any desperate hopes for her future at all? 

Clancy’s supporters can claim she was insane when she committed the crime. That’s certainly nonsense, but none of us were there reading her mind when she did it — not that it matters. She deserves to fry no matter what was going on in her mind at the time of the murders. But we can all observe what she’s doing right now, starting with hiring a very savvy lawyer and fighting for her freedom. 

These are not the actions of a loving mother who accidentally executed her entire family, even if I could accept that one might accidentally do something like that, which I don’t. If Clancy were actually a loving mother who killed her kids through no conscious fault of her own, then she would be in total despair right now, utterly indifferent to the jury verdict. If she had any hopes or plans for the future, it would just be the hope that she can find a way to kill herself in jail.

To be clear about this: The mere fact that Clancy half-assed the suicide attempt and is now fighting for her freedom tells you everything you need to know. You don’t even need to get into the fact that she failed to mention killing her children when her husband showed up, the way she went doctor-shopping for pills, her Google search history, or the fact that she had an extraordinarily robust support system, including a nanny. 

You don’t even need to think about the “voice” she supposedly heard in her head, telling her to murder her children, a voice that had never appeared before that moment or since, and one that, even if it did appear — which it didn’t — she could have told “no.” 

The way Clancy behaved after the murders, by itself, is enough to conclude that she was not in the throes of some horrible, mystical, temporary psychosis that briefly controlled her mind. Lindsay Clancy is a demon. She is the reason we had witch trials. The jury in her murder trial should have concluded, in less than an hour, that she should spend the rest of her life in prison for first-degree murder, which would still be a sentence far more lenient than what she deserves. 

But after three-and-a-half days of deliberations, the jury still has not returned a verdict. According to courtroom reports, there are nine women and three men on the jury. And you can only imagine what those three men have had to deal with over the past few days. This isn’t “12 Angry Men” we’re talking about here. This is, we can only assume, a TikTok jury. Some of the women are probably in there debating astrology, or fantasizing about how the husband really did it. Meanwhile, the men are saying, “Wait a minute, you can’t just murder your children and get away with it.” And these men are fighting a losing battle.

In short, this is a trial that threatens to set the American legal system — along with the women’s suffrage movement — back about 150 years or so. There is now a very real possibility that the jury will not reach a verdict in this case because several jurors want to acquit Lindsay Clancy on the basis of her alleged mental illness. Actually, that may be the best-case scenario at this point. It’s also possible, of course, that the jury simply finds Clancy not guilty by a unanimous verdict, or that the prosecutors decide not to retry the case after a hung jury. In any of these scenarios, the odds are substantial that, before long, Clancy will be a free woman. 

That’s because, in Massachusetts, once you’re found not guilty by reason of insanity, you’re released from jail the moment psychiatrists determine that you’re no longer a threat to yourself or others. There’s a 40-day evaluation period, followed by a 6-month period of commitment, which has to be renewed endlessly in one-year increments if the prosecution wants to keep you in prison. But as soon as a doctor determines that you’re not crazy anymore, you’re free. It’s as if you never murdered anyone. 

If a doctor says that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis, then in all likelihood, she’ll be out of prison within a year. We’ll have decided, as a society, that women occasionally become so overwhelmed with hormones that they aren’t responsible for anything they do — even slaughtering their own children in a premeditated triple-homicide. We will have determined, as a matter of law, that women simply cannot control themselves, and therefore should suffer no consequences whatsoever. If a voice tells them to do something, then they have no choice but to comply.

If that’s the case, why exactly should we ever entrust a woman to do anything? To run a business? To lead a country? To treat patients? What’s to stop the first female president from launching all of our nuclear warheads in a moment of “postpartum psychosis?” If something like that happens, who are we to judge? She couldn’t control herself. Men wouldn’t understand. The feminists defending Lindsay Clancy are, by their own arguments, making the strongest case for patriarchy that anyone could ever make. 

In summation, the defense of Clancy is, to put it mildly, self-defeating. But it’s a very widespread belief among women right now, which is why this case has blown up on TikTok. And indeed, there is a very obvious split in this case between men and women. Men generally believe Lindsay Clancy deserves to die for what she did. Women are saying she’s not responsible. This is from Savanah Hernandez. 

Watch:

MEN VS. WOMEN: I went to go ask men versus women whether or not they think Lindsay Clancy is guilty.

The responses could not have been more opposite ???? pic.twitter.com/QaELeQ1lRK

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) August 31, 2026

Source: @Savsays/X.com

Speaking to Kaitlin Bennett, some Clancy supporters openly admitted they would potentially harm their own children. 

Watch:

INSANE! Kaitlin Bennett interviewed Lindsay Clancy supporters, with some even admitting they would hurt their own children. Others said they get all their news from TikTok. pic.twitter.com/JDfdIwyOUj

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 1, 2026

Source: @Breaking911/X.com

There hasn’t been a poll on this, but it’s apparent that a large preponderance of women in this country are supportive of Lindsay Clancy. That’s why these videos are so easy to find. It’s also why mobs of Clancy supporters — almost all of them women — have been gathering outside the courthouse wearing pink, as a show of solidarity. 

They say they’re trying to “break the stigma” surrounding postpartum psychosis. They claim the healthcare system “failed” Lindsay Clancy. These women are clearly projecting themselves onto Clancy. They see this case as a potential vindication for all of their own deluded, narcissistic, and psychopathic behavior in their own lives. A “not guilty” verdict for Clancy, to these women, is also a retroactive justification for their own horrible parenting. It’s an official statement from a court that, when they mistreated their spouses or their children, they were actually blameless. They had no agency. They had no ability to control themselves. 

This is why so many of these women have taken an interest in this case. Lindsay Clancy is not a supermodel. She’s not an actress. She’s a woman of average looks, if also somewhat witch-like in appearance. And therefore, she’s the perfect avatar. Any self-absorbed woman can easily “see” herself in Lindsay Clancy. This footage makes the point for me. Watch as women mob Clancy’s lawyer outside the courthouse. Listen to what they tell him:

‘You’re the voice of so many moms’: Kevin Reddington fans hug lawyer outside court https://t.co/z0RgwRqiwl pic.twitter.com/HBpWwgQyXb

— New York Post (@nypost) August 31, 2026

Source: @nypost/X.com

Notice how they’re all talking about themselves, in the most pathetic way imaginable. They’re not even really interested in the case; they’re interested in prattling on about their own problems. Clancy is an avatar. And as always, they have no self-awareness about that whatsoever. Most of the women rallying around Clancy don’t even know why they’re doing it. They don’t understand their own psychology, let alone hers. These freaks want to buy this slimy lawyer a steak dinner, as if he wants to be anywhere near them. But now that they’ve burned through every other relationship in their lives, they’re desperate for any dinner date they can get. 

Of course, the great concern is that the crazy feminist women aren’t just outside the courthouse or on TikTok. They’re also sitting on the jury. And, although we can’t know for sure right now, there’s reason to be worried. Here’s a post from “Justice Served TV”, which was in the courtroom on Monday.

Judge Sullivan takes his seat. Jury in. Dapper Dan (Alternate) still in his tie. Handsome Woman has on pink jeans shorts and Juror in front row far left (White Woman, 40ish) is wearing a pink sweater.

So that’s two jurors who are wearing pink to the courtroom, likely knowing full well that Clancy’s supporters are wearing pink to signal their support for child murder. At LA Magazine, a reporter named Lauren Conlin had the same observation:

On Monday morning, jurors shuffled into the courtroom looking more dressed up than usual. Several male jurors wore collared shirts, including one with a tie, while several female jurors wore dresses. Notably, two female jurors wore pink; one in a pink sweater and another in pink pants. The color choice stood out, as supporters of Lindsay Clancy have previously worn pink as a show of support.

This is like something out of “Runaway Jury.” And it raises obvious questions: Why is the judge allowing this? Why didn’t he ask any of these jurors about the clothes they were wearing? Why didn’t he immediately dismiss these jurors and install the alternates?

There was reporting that the judge did pull each juror aside for questioning under oath after the August 20 demonstration outside the courthouse (where the demonstrators all wore pink). And the judge asked each juror whether the protest had affected them or their ability to remain impartial. 

Obviously, this doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. None of these women are going to tell the judge, “Yeah, my brain is fried on TikTok slop, I can’t be an impartial juror anymore.” When a trial involves this much publicity — to the point that jurors can’t avoid hearing about it on social media, even if they wanted to — then the judge has an obligation to take some affirmative action to ensure a fair trial. I’m not saying the judge could’ve solved all the problems with this trial, but he could’ve done a lot more than we’ve seen so far.

For starters, the jury should’ve been sequestered from the beginning of the trial. They should have had no access to the internet whatsoever, from the moment testimony began. This is the whole point of sequestering the jury — it’s for very high-profile cases like this one, where there’s no realistic way for the jury to avoid seeing information about the trial when they leave the courtroom. If you can’t sequester the jury in this case, then there’s no situation where you can do it. 

It’s inconvenient for the jury, sure. No one likes being locked away in a hotel, under armed guard, without the ability to interact with the rest of the world, or to browse TikTok. But in this case, more than any other case in memory, that’s precisely what the jury needed. It’s more like a TikTok detox than sequestration. 

These people needed to be forcibly prevented from scrolling their feeds and rotting their brains even more than they’ve already been rotted. Who knows — after their fifth week of being imprisoned in a Holiday Inn, maybe these people would’ve started using their brains again. Maybe they’d develop an attention span and critical thinking skills. As far as I know, no one has ever run this experiment. No one has ever jailed brainrot-obsessed women and taken their phones away for a month, and observed the effects. This trial could’ve been a perfect opportunity to give that a shot.

The case was receiving a lot of attention prior to the jury being seated, and it’s very possible some of the jurors were already prejudiced in favor of Clancy before the testimony even began. All the same, it was clearly worth a shot. There was no reason not to do it. 

As it stands, throughout the entire trial and deliberations, the jurors have had constant access to people who want to sway their verdict.

And while we’re on the topic, a change of venue was obviously appropriate as well. This was actually something the defense wanted, on the grounds that Clancy had been demonized by the local press in Plymouth. They wanted the trial moved to Boston, and the motion was denied because the judge thought Plymouth had a diversity of opinions on the matter. 

But the real problem with this motion for a change of venue is that it didn’t go nearly far enough. The trial should’ve been moved to the single most remote location that the judge could find. Pick a jury on St. Matthew Island in the Bering Sea, and hold the trial there. Yes, it’s an uninhabited island. But you could easily find some commercial fishermen nearby, or maybe a few search-and-rescue pilots. 

I guarantee you, a jury in the Bering Sea is not going to care about TikTok conspiracy theories about Lindsay Clancy. It will be the least-prejudiced jury in the entire country. They would listen carefully to the facts of the case — which are undisputed — and they would return a guilty verdict in about 30 seconds. And then they would return to their lives, and no one would have to think about this infernal trial ever again.

Although they don’t realize it, this would be the best possible outcome for Clancy’s supporters as well. 

Yes, it can be intoxicating to absolve yourself — and your gender — of all personal responsibility. But in the long run, it leads to a lot of very uncomfortable questions for these people. 

Every single killer who’s ever lived has had various biological factors you could point to as an explanation for what they did. Maybe they were impulsive by nature thanks to their genetics. Maybe they had an unexpected surge of testosterone that made them more violent. Maybe they were irritable because they had low blood sugar. Maybe they’re simply too dumb to understand the consequences of their actions due to a lack of brain cells. 

All of these factors may have contributed to the killer’s state of mind. But none of these factors can ever justify murder. They don’t mean that we have to live around these people either. When you reach the opposite conclusion — when you excuse murders because of some biological “imbalance” you think you’ve identified — then you are effectively legalizing murder as a category. There is no limiting principle you can apply anymore. You are endangering all of society and providing a massive incentive for people to murder anyone who inconveniences them. And you’re doing it all for what purpose, exactly? 

The Lindsay Clancy case is what happens when you tell millions of people that they’re oppressed based on characteristics they cannot control, and then give those people immense power in society — power they’ve never had at any other point in human civilization. We are approaching the logical endpoint of the 20 different waves of feminism — the legalization of post-birth abortion, of murder on demand. Yes, it remains possible that the jury will ultimately reach the correct verdict in this case, although, at this point, it doesn’t seem very likely.

What we do know — and what I didn’t realize until this case went mainstream — is that a not insignificant number of women have at least considered harming their own children. That’s what many Clancy defenders have admitted, sometimes implicitly but also sometimes explicitly. 

And whatever happens to Lindsay Clancy, we have to confront the fact that these people are living among us. They’re living with children in many cases. They’re sitting on juries. They hold elected office. They’re judges, police officers, DMV clerks, and bus drivers. And they are harboring murderous desires in their hearts. They are the kinds of people who look at a monster like Lindsay Clancy and find common cause with her. 

And because of this case, these women are now realizing, all over the country, that should they ever act on those desires, they can probably get away with it — and become famous and wealthy in the process. 

That’s why, whatever the jury ultimately decides in this case, the mere fact that deliberations have taken so long basically guarantees that, very soon, we’ll all find out how depraved these people can get. And particularly if there’s a Lindsay Clancy supporter in your life, for your sake and your children’s sake, you should be very worried about that.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism