The Lindsay Clancy Case Isn’t A ‘Who-Dun-It.’ Why Are TikTok Moms Pretending It Is?

I’m going to discuss one of the most horrifying murder cases in memory. This murder case is so awful, so dark, so totally unthinkable, and ghastly, that frankly I don’t like to think about it, and would therefore prefer not to discuss it. 

Yet the case does have implications — not merely political, but deeper than that. The murder itself, the reaction to it, the commentary on it, and the defense that’s being argued in court, all say something — and something quite troubling — about our culture. And that’s why I’ve decided to discuss it.

Lindsay Clancy is a former labor and delivery nurse. Back in January of 2023, she sent her husband, Patrick, out of the house to run an errand at CVS and pick up food. 

With Patrick out of the way, Clancy took her young children — Cora (age 5), Dawson (age 3), and Callan (8 months) — into the basement, where she methodically strangled each of them to death with exercise bands. Clancy then slashed her wrists and jumped out of a second-story window, sustaining serious injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down. 

When her husband arrived, she told him the kids were in the basement. He ran downstairs to find them all dead. Later, according to her husband, Lindsay claimed that she had “heard a voice commanding her to kill the children and then herself.”

Despite what the wannabe Nancy Drews are saying on TikTok, this is not exactly a whodunnit. Lindsay Clancy confessed to the crime. Her guilt is self-evident. And her attorneys, in front of the jury, aren’t even attempting to argue that she didn’t commit the crime. 

They’ve stipulated to all of the forensic evidence, which means they formally agreed that all of the evidence is real and legitimate and valid. Again, they are not trying to argue that she didn’t do it. She did it, and it’s not being disputed by any rational person — though it is being disputed by plenty of irrational people. 

Instead, the case is about whether Lindsay Clancy qualifies as “not guilty by reason of insanity” — specifically, by reason of “postpartum psychosis” exacerbated by the medications she was taking.

This defense should not exist as a matter of law. Once a woman brutally murders her own children, it does not matter what a therapist says about why she did it. It does not matter how she felt. It does not matter if she was sad or anxious or indeed insane. She should be removed from society permanently as a matter of justice. 

If her defense is that she’s so crazy that she just can’t help herself — that she had no choice but to strangle her own children to death — then that’s all the more reason to remove her from society permanently. 

It should not be controversial to say that a person who methodically executes three children, strangling each to death as the others watch in horror, is a person who must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, crazy or not, or on medication or not. 

There are some things that you can do in life that — once they’ve been done — preclude you from ever walking free again. These are actions that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Justice must be done. Punishment must be given. And if murdering three children — your own young, helpless children — does not qualify as one of those sorts of actions — if it does not call for the most severe punishment — then nothing does. 

We should note that a successful insanity plea in the state of Massachusetts does not at all mean, necessarily, that the person who was found “not guilty by reason of insanity” will spend the rest of their life in a mental institution. 

You’ll often hear people claim that there’s no reason to get upset when a murderer is found not guilty by reason of insanity, because they’ll still be locked up in an institution for life. But that’s not true. There’s a reason defendants try for the insanity defense. The fate of a person found not guilty on that basis is considerably more favorable than one found guilty. 

If we were still living in the 1940s, when the criminally insane were committed for life to insane asylums, which were institutions often more punishing and nightmarish than actual prisons, then I might feel differently. But we are not in the 1940s anymore.

If Clancy’s insanity defense is successful, she will be placed in a mental health institution indefinitely — but not necessarily permanently — and the state will have to petition every single year to keep her there. Every year they will have to prove that she is still mentally ill and a risk to society. If they can’t prove it, or decline to petition in the first place, she will, in fact, be released back into society. 

This happens all the time. And there’s a very high chance it would happen with Lindsey Clancy. The only way to permanently remove this woman — who, again, murdered three children — from society is to find her guilty of murder in the first degree and put her in prison for life with no parole or execute her. 

The entire concept of an insanity defense, as I’ve argued before, is completely nonsensical and antithetical to the basic notions of justice and fairness. That is particularly true in this context. 

Watch:

So, “If a mother says she’s not feeling right, or if she’s struggling,” that might mean she has “postpartum psychosis” or “postpartum depression.” Other symptoms to look out for include “confusion, disorientation, increased energy, racing thoughts, and sleep disturbance” — which, incidentally, are all symptoms that every human being has at some point in their life, particularly when they’re in a stressful situation. There’s no lab test for this disorder, and the diagnostic criteria are so broad that they apply to about 95% of the population. 

Nevertheless, “postpartum psychosis” is currently a viable defense to first-degree murder, and we’re all supposed to take it seriously. To be clear, I’m not denying that “postpartum psychosis” can occur. Sometimes people do hallucinate, for one reason or another. Certainly, postpartum depression is a very real phenomenon. 

But even if you’re fully on board with the idea that some women can develop this psychosis because their hormones get out of whack, the idea that it completely removes all agency, that they are not responsible at all for anything they do — up to and including slaughtering three human beings — is ludicrous. 

Remember that Clancy sent her husband out of the house so that she could murder her kids. Remember that she murdered them with exercise bands, one at a time. Remember that she brought them to the basement so that they could be killed. This was not a sudden explosion of violence in the heat of the moment. Even if it were, she should still rot in prison forever, at a minimum. But it wasn’t that. Instead, this was a planned, organized, systematic execution of her children. 

There is a long history of women murdering their children and then being found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Women who murder their own children are particularly likely to play this “get out of jail free” card, and play it successfully. 

Most people will remember the Andrea Yates case from 20 years ago. She drowned all five of her children in a bathtub. She was initially convicted of capital murder. But an appeals court threw out the conviction. She was retried, and then found not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Today, Andrea Yates, after having murdered five children, spends her days in a low-security mental health facility with no bars on the windows or razor wire fencing or armed guards. The only reason she’s still there, and not walking free, is that she wants to be there. 

This is the generosity and kindness the criminal justice system tends to show women who murder their kids. And it’s why, statistically, women who plead insanity are much more likely to be successful than men who enter that plea. In fact, a woman who pleads insanity is 50% more likely to be found not guilty. 

There are plenty of recent examples, too. Just a month ago, a black woman in Miami was found not guilty of drowning her 15-month-old daughter and stabbing her husband because COVID made her do it. Yes, COVID supposedly forced this woman to slaughter her 15-month-old child. Never mind the fact that she was upset about her husband’s alleged infidelity. That had nothing to do with it. COVID was responsible. 

Watch:

If you ever have difficulty convincing someone that the insanity defense should be abolished, show them this clip. Judges are letting murderers out of prison because they had COVID. It’s so utterly insane — speaking of insanity — that you have to give them credit for creativity, at least. 

As long as the insanity defense exists, it’s the perfect loophole if you want to legalize post-birth abortion. Just bury the jury in nonsense, give it an air of legitimacy, and hope they acquit. That’s the strategy. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing in the Clancy case.

Virtually all of the testimony, to this point, has been a morass of meaningless back-and-forth about the precise psychological symptoms that Clancy was demonstrating (or not demonstrating) when she spoke to her doctors. Take a look at the following heated cross-examination between the defense attorney and Jennifer Tufts, who was one of Clancy’s psychiatrists. It illustrates exactly what this whole trial is about. 

Watch:

It’s just mind-numbing. Insane does not begin to describe this, from both directions. There is precisely zero relevant information being disclosed to the jury in this testimony. It’s all theater. Did the doctor write in her notes that Clancy had “pressured speech” or “not pressured speech”? Was there supposed to be a comma there or not? Does any of this matter? 

There are podcast hosts who, if they walked into a shrink’s office, would get a diagnosis of “pressured speech.” The distinction simply doesn’t matter. And that’s especially true in this case, when the doctor is telling the lawyer how to interpret the note based on her observations. But I guess we’re supposed to conclude that this is some kind of “gotcha” moment because everyone’s supposed to pretend that “pressured speech” is an actual clue, like finding fingerprints on a murder weapon. It’s all so absurd. 

The field of psychiatry has been allowed to fester unabated for decades, without anyone telling these shrinks to get a real job. And this is the result. 

The more relevant testimony concerned Clancy’s response to taking the SSRI known as Zoloft, when the doctor prescribed it. 

Watch:

This is a common experience for women, particularly women with careers like Clancy. To a staggering degree, women are being prescribed SSRIs as a first line of defense against any problems they may be dealing with. And the results have not been good. This is from the Institute for Family Studies: 

Stay-at-home mothers are less likely to have experienced a major depressive episode (about two-thirds as likely, in fact) than women who are not stay-at-home mothers. … 32% of stay-at-home mothers have taken psychotherapeutic medication in the past year, while 38% of non-stay-at-home mothers have. … By far, women who are not stay-at-home mothers are the most copious users of prescription pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives.

To restate: 32% of stay-at-home moms and 38% of working moms are on psychiatric meds. A third of all moms — working or not — are on some kind of psychotropic drug. That is nothing short of cataclysmic. Big Pharma and the psychiatric industry are turning the whole country into drug addicts, and nobody’s doing anything about it. And the numbers for men are nearly as bad. 

and:

As a side note: One thing to keep in mind when you see reports about alcohol use declining is not only that lots of people have swapped booze for weed, but also that many more people are using psychiatric meds to calm themselves down and handle stress. We are not in any way even remotely a more sober society than we were back when everyone was drinking booze. We traded one substance for myriad other substances that mess with your mind much more deeply and in ways that we don’t even understand.

What’s even more extraordinary about these numbers is that the doctors prescribing these psychoactive medications have no idea how they work, as evidenced by the testimony from Clancy’s psychiatrist.

She stated on the stand that she was prescribing SSRIs to correct the “serotonin imbalance” that she believed was taking place in Clancy’s brain. There’s just one problem: The “Serotonin imbalance” theory of depression has been completely abandoned. There was a paper about it in Nature. This is well established. The theory has long since been debunked. 

The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities. … The huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.

That was published in 2022. And in 2026, we’re still hearing from doctors on the stand about how a lack of serotonin is linked to depression. And then, after all this, she puts Clancy back on Zoloft a few months later.

It’s hard to come away from this testimony without concluding that the entire psychiatric industry needs to be shut down. As it continues, there’s more consternation about her notes and the strategies she used in talk therapy to calm Clancy down. It’s all pseudoscience. 

Clancy’s psychiatrist even waves her hands around as she’s describing the “10 minutes of emotional support and validation she provided.” The entire industry is based on vibes. None of it actually holds up under scrutiny because they’re making it up as they go. 

An important point in this trial (which has a lot of relevance for the broader problem of over-medicated women) is that Clancy had multiple providers (at least 5, by my count), and she was on a lot of different medications. She was actually prescribed many more drugs than she took, and she often didn’t complete the full course of medication. 

That is a point relevant for — and inconvenient to — her defense. Yes, she was prescribed a bunch of medicine. But she didn’t actually take most of it. Still, there were far too many prescriptions being written. And that’s an understatement. 

A psychiatrist named Nicolas Badre put together this chart, which shows the extent to which Clancy was being medicated:

In total, she was on around 14 different medications in 4 months. So she was being over-prescribed by a rotating cast of providers to an extreme degree. As Badre points out, most of the drugs were intended to help her sleep: Ativan, Benadryl, low-dose Trazodone, Klonopin, Remeron, Ambien, and low-dose Seroquel. But Badre notes that the Seroquel was “ultimately increased to 200 mg, the dose range where antipsychotic activity becomes relevant.”

Clancy’s ex-husband, who she sent out on errands while she committed the murders, testified about the effects of some of these drugs. 

Watch:

What’s absurd — or one of the many absurd things, anyway — about all of the Internet theories that this guy somehow committed the murders is that he’s actually helping her case. If he really orchestrated this murder and framed her somehow, he’d obviously want her to take the fall. But in this case, he’s helping her make the argument that the “drugs made her do it.” Separately, he talks about how normal she seemed at various points, including shortly before the murders. 

Again, who knows what they’re proving here. You could pull up the Facebook feed of pretty much any first-degree murder suspect and find periods where they seem completely normal and happy — even just moments before the murder. Some of them are happy during the murder and afterwards. 

The fact that this woman had extreme mood swings does not demonstrate that the drugs were partially responsible. They might have been. We really have no idea. No one — including these “experts” — has any idea what these psychoactive drugs are doing to the brain. That’s a reason to avoid taking them. And it’s a reason to throw this woman in prison, because whether the drugs affected her mindset or not, she ultimately made the decision to murder her own children. Therefore, she cannot be allowed in society ever again. She simply can’t be trusted around anyone, especially children.

I’m very sympathetic to the idea that the drugs may have messed with Clancy’s mind, making her even more unbalanced than she already was. The drugs might even be partially responsible. But that doesn’t mean she should ever see the outside of a prison cell ever again. She still murdered her children. She, herself — Lindsey Clancy, that particular human being — went into her basement and strangled her kids to death. She did that. Nobody else did. She did. And she must pay for it. 

If her doctors share some blame, and maybe they do, then they should be tossed in a prison cell right next to her. If Big Pharma shares some blame — and they almost certainly do — then Big Pharma executives should be dragged into prison in handcuffs and leg irons. That sounds good to me. The more the merrier. But Lindsay Clancy, the killer of children, must pay for her crimes. 

That’s the only reasonable takeaway from this sordid, seemingly endless trial. The psychiatric industry is a sham. They have no idea what they’re doing. People — especially women — are far too reliant on these medications. But when it comes to Clancy, none of this matters, because she’s a murderer. At least — to the extent it does matter — it doesn’t vindicate her or exonerate her or change the simple and terrible fact that she, herself, murdered her children. So the verdict should be guilty, and we shouldn’t have to discuss her ever again.

But if you ask women on the internet about this case, there’s a good chance you’ll hear a very different takeaway. The Lindsay Clancy case, like the cases involving Karen Read, Tyler Robinson, and many others, has become a phenomenon among women, particularly on social media. Many women have rallied to Clancy’s defense on the basis of her insanity defense. 

On social media, you’ll find countless posts like this one from a woman named Katie, who identifies herself as a former prosecutor, and wrote:

I was a prosecutor for 12 years. 8 of them doing crimes against children. Lindsay Clancy is a file I would have left on my boss’s desk and said, ‘Find someone else for this one. It won’t be me.’ Just saying.

That post has thousands of likes. Katie goes on, in the comments, to say that Clancy isn’t responsible for murdering her own kids because she “begged for help and tried to get it.” Katie says that Clancy “spiraled into darkness.” 

That may be true, of course. But someone should inform Katie, the alleged prosecutor, that literally every murderer, ever, in history, has “spiraled into darkness.” Murder is not something you tend to do if your mind is in a bright, clear, and happy place. No matter how Clancy was feeling, she still killed her kids. 

Even if it’s true that Clancy heard a voice telling her to kill her kids — which is what she claims, and it’s something that can never be proven or disproven anyway — still, she chose to kill her kids. Even if you do hallucinate a voice telling you to murder your whole family, the correct response is to decline to follow the recommendations of the hallucinated voice. What if a real voice told you to kill your kids? Would that make it okay? Would that make you not guilty? In fact, if an actual person told you to kill your kids and put a literal gun to your head, you would still have the choice to not follow the command, even at the penalty of death. Moreover, as a society, we would expect you to resist the command, even to the point of sacrificing your life, rather than intentionally harming your own children. 

And again, I have to point out that there have been plenty of cases of men killing their families, and in those cases, the men are significantly less likely to get away with an insanity defense, and they almost never have the women of the internet rallying to their defense. 

The Katies of the world aren’t stepping up to argue that Joe Smith, the family killer, was “in a dark place” and feeling really sad and so it wasn’t his fault. They only tend to have that kind of sympathy for other women. 

There’s one other point about the insanity defense that is rarely made, so I want to make it here. The insanity defense — indeed the concept of insanity itself, and its implications — is as much a philosophical and existential question as it is a medical one. 

So when you claim that a woman who murdered her children isn’t responsible for the crime she committed — when you say (as I believe even her husband has said) that it wasn’t “really her” who did the thing — you are making a profound claim not just about the nature of psychiatric conditions, but about the nature of the self. 

If it wasn’t really Lindsay Clancy who did what Lindsay Clancy did, then who was it? It was her body doing the strangling. Her arms. Her hands. It was her eyes that looked into her children’s eyes as they stared at her in terror and confusion. And she did it intentionally, deliberately, even with forethought. She wasn’t sleepwalking or otherwise unconscious. Was that not herself acting? What other self could it be? You seem to be positing the existence of some kind of other self, some alien self, which was acting within Clancy’s body while her “real self,” whatever that means, lay dormant in some mysterious corner of her subconscious. I find the whole idea of that, the entire concept, incoherent. 

Our laws are not consistent on this point. If a man gets drunk, sits behind the wheel of a car, and then causes a fatal accident, he will be held entirely culpable for it, be punished accordingly, and deservedly so. In fact, a drunk man who causes an accident will be punished more severely — he will face a greater punishment, not a lesser one than a sober man. Yet the drunk man, we all agree, was not in his right mind. His mental capacities were certainly diminished. He was acting in ways he would not have acted otherwise. 

If there is such a thing as a “real self,” then his real self — that is, his sober, rational, competent self — was not involved in the accident. His inebriated, mentally compromised self was. And yet we still hold him completely responsible. He may wake up the next morning and not even remember the accident. And yet we will still send him to prison to serve a punishment for a crime he has no memory of committing.

You might argue that the drunk man chose to get drunk. But so what? If the idea is that we can’t hold people accountable for awful crimes committed when they were in a state of psychological derangement, then all that matters is their state of mind in that particular moment. Choices made before that moment are irrelevant. 

That’s what they’re explicitly arguing in the case of Lindsey Clancy and in any other “temporary insanity” case. And besides, most people today would say that alcoholism is a disease anyway. So did he actually choose to get drunk? I mean this all as devil’s advocate. I absolutely believe we should throw the book at drunk drivers. But I apply the same logic to people allegedly intoxicated on psych meds or on their own mental delusions or anything else. 

Recently, a woman in California avoided prison time entirely after stabbing her boyfriend 100 times, killing him. The judge decided that she was the victim of “cannabis-induced psychosis.” She was not herself, you see. She was not in her right mind. Even though she chose to pack a bong with weed and smoke it. So there is no consistency at all in how this idea of temporary psychological impairment is applied in court. The only consistent theme is that women are much more likely to be the beneficiaries. 

The sympathy for Lindsay Clancy goes even deeper. In fact, in this case, as in other recent cases, it has turned into its own kind of TikTok psychosis. Women (and a relatively small number of men, most of them probably gay) are spending hours dissecting the case, looking for evidence of a vast conspiracy that proves Lindsay Clancy is innocent entirely — not just innocent by reason of insanity, but actually innocent, as in she didn’t commit the crime at all. 

And I don’t think this phenomenon is entirely unrelated to the fact that many women are hopped up on psychoactive drugs, by the way. When you’re giving mind-altering substances to a third of women, and women suddenly become interested in psychotic theories, maybe there’s something to explore there.

Most of these deranged theories conclude — based on fake evidence and immense logical leaps — that her ex-husband is really responsible. You’ll find women claiming that the “voice” that Clancy claims to have heard in her head was, in fact, the voice of her ex-husband. They’re writing movie scripts in their minds. Here’s one example:

Watch: 

@creepycornerwithken_ EP 41 || who do you think is guilty in the clansy case?! #lindsayclancystory #murdertrial #truecrimestory #truecrimetok #clancytrial ♬ original sound – CREEPY CORNER WITH KEN

The first point she makes has nothing to do with whether Clancy committed the murders. Yes, as we discussed, the psychiatrist is an unimpressive witness. That doesn’t mean Clancy’s husband framed her for murder.

As for the second point about the body being too cold — you’ll hear this a lot on social media. All the TikTok doctors are weighing in. The idea is that the official narrative doesn’t make sense because Clancy’s body (after she jumped outside the second-story window and crumpled on the ground) was far too cold for the time she spent on the ground. Therefore, she must have spent much longer on the ground than the prosecutors are claiming, which means the murders may have happened at a different time. Here’s another example of this argument:

Watch:

Oh, this random guy talked to a nurse. He literally talked to a nurse. And the nurse literally said that the body was too cold. Hang on, everyone. Stop the trial. This guy talked to a nurse. Yes, this unnamed nurse, who spoke to this unknown guy on TikTok, is a more reliable expert than every doctor, law enforcement officer, and every other expert involved in this trial. Why should we believe that? 

This is very common on social media now, of course. The internet sleuths get together, reject the theory of the case that all of the evidence points to, concoct a new theory with much less evidence, or none at all, and assert that the new theory is somehow more credible, despite being based on evidence that is astronomically worse and less credible by every metric. 

The thing is, when someone jumps from a second-story window and sustains a spinal injury (as Clancy did), all kinds of things can go wrong in the body. You might lose your ability to shiver, for example. And your blood vessels might not be able to narrow and constrict. These are a number of ways that your body preserves heat when you’re out in the cold. And before long, if you don’t have these basic mechanisms, you get a lot colder than normal. 

Blood loss has the same effect. These are all things that I found from a little bit of research. But I’m not an authority on the subject of how long it takes for a body to lose heat after someone jumps out of a window. In fact, I never thought about that question until this moment. 

The same is true for every TikTok detective. They never even considered the question until right now. They know absolutely nothing about it. They have no relevant base of knowledge. And yet they suddenly know enough to dismiss every piece of evidence being presented in court — evidence that the defense itself does not dispute. In fact, these TikTok detectives are so brilliant, such geniuses, that they apparently have a better understanding of who killed Lindsey Clancy’s kids than Lindsey Clancy does. Lindsey Clancy, who — again — confessed. 

There’s a lot of that going around, too, as you’ve noticed. The Tyler Robinson case is an example that springs to everyone’s mind. That’s yet another case where the defendant confessed — admitted their own guilt — and yet the internet detectives believe they are greater authorities on the defendant’s guilt or innocence than the defendant himself. 

In the Clancy case, the TikTok doctors have it all figured out. Even though there’s been no testimony in this case to support their theory, they’re confidently telling their audience that, indeed, the official narrative is impossible because the body was too cold. And the hysteria continues from there. 

Clancy’s husband remarried three years after the murders, not four months. So that’s a pretty big fact to get wrong. And even if he remarried the next day, that would not be evidence that he committed the murder Lindsay Clancy confessed to. And no, he didn’t send that email from his home, as far as we know. As the testimony made very clear, he sent emails all the time from his iPhone. And this particular email, based on the evidence that’s been presented, was probably one of them.

It’s just an onslaught of stupidity. The TikTok woman mentioned earlier apparently found a picture of the CVS stocked with a certain laxative. Therefore, there’s no way, in her mind, that the laxative was actually out of stock when the husband called Lindsay to inform her the item was out of stock. Therefore, he must be lying about everything. 

Again, this isn’t an argument the defense is making because it’s absurd on its face. It doesn’t prove that he actually saw that the item was in stock, or that it was in stock at the moment he called. But she moves on from this point very quickly because she understands that, if you think about it for five seconds, you’ll realize it’s total nonsense. 

She also claims at one point that, because the husband’s DNA was on the exercise bands that were used to strangle the kids, he must have done it. Never mind the fact that it’s a common household item that everyone was touching. His DNA could be found on most of the stuff in his house because it’s his house.

She moves on to claim that there’s no way Clancy could’ve confessed to her husband because her throat was crushed from the fall. But again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who sustains a serious injury might be able to speak one minute, and then be incapacitated afterwards. Swelling is one of them. We have “dying declarations” for a reason — it’s extremely common for people who are gravely injured to lose their ability to speak, very quickly. But again, we’re meant to conclude this is simply impossible. Never mind the fact that Clancy can speak now, but she’s still refusing to identify her husband as the perpetrator. Instead, she’s admitting guilt.

Then she makes the extraordinary claim that Clancy couldn’t have really tried to kill herself, because she ineffectively slashed her wrists. And, as a nurse, she would’ve known the right way to do it. 

So understand what’s happening here: We have a woman who’s so psychotic and evil and unstable that she’s just murdered her own children, one by one, in her basement. She’s just deceived her husband to get him out of the house while she committed these crimes. And despite all of that, we’re supposed to assume, first of all, that she didn’t actually intend to kill herself, and, secondly, that she couldn’t possibly have made a mistake in this deranged, homicidal state. There’s just no way she wouldn’t have slashed her wrists at the ideal angle. Therefore, there’s a vast conspiracy and the husband did it.

This is not idle speculation, by the way. Accusing a man of murder without any evidence is truly despicable. If you’re watching this garbage content, you’re just as culpable as this vulture. And I’m not even going to discuss her retarded theory about how the woman must have been dangling from the house because of the blood spots that were found on the outside wall. It makes no sense. You’re dumber for having listened to it.

But it’s incredibly popular content. That TikTok video has something like 40,000 likes. And believe it or not, it’s actually one of the better pieces of Lindsay Clancy content you’ll find on social media. Most of these videos don’t even bother to lie about the evidence. Here’s another one:

Why do I keep seeing women on tiktok unironically defending a mom who murdered 3 of her kids? Has the world gone mad? pic.twitter.com/9PPjS94oVK

— cs (@cvntspeeds) August 10, 2026

Source: @cvntspeeds/X.com

There you have it. The ex-husband didn’t cry on the stand, so he probably murdered his own kids and framed his wife. And then he cast a spell on her that forced her to confess.

This is another common theme among the TikTok detectives. They formulate wildly implausible alternative theories fueled mainly by the feelings and vibes they get from watching facial expressions. The internet is now suddenly full of body language experts who have the psychic ability to solve murder cases just by looking into someone’s eyes. That’s really what these women think. Many of them have implicated Erika Kirk on the same basis. “Something just feels off,” you’ll hear them say. “Something feels off.” All of the forensic evidence, all of the witness testimony, all of the data on the ground, even the confession of the murderer — all of that can be dismissed, disregarded, because women on the internet think “something feels off.” 

Not convinced? Well, on top of that, the police “didn’t fingerprint anything.” Can you imagine that? It sounds pretty bad — almost like they wanted to frame Lindsay Clancy. And then you realize that, actually, they did process the entire scene for fingerprints. They didn’t recover usable prints from the main pieces of evidence, but that’s very different from “not fingerprinting anything.” And again, this is all moot, because she’s confessed to the crime. And her defense has never attempted to argue that she didn’t do it.

But maybe I’m being too harsh on this woman. There’s even worse content out there, if you can imagine. The more you look at these videos, the worse they get. Somehow the bar continues to go lower and lower with each one. A large percentage of these videos don’t even talk about the case at all. They just straight-up worship Lindsay Clancy because she killed her kids. 

Watch:

Just when you thought white progressive women couldn’t stoop any lower, here they are.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I have just discovered that there is a deranged group of women who are not merely defending Lindsay Clancy. They are actively organizing to… pic.twitter.com/SOm1ykg7Mp

— I Meme Therefore I Am ???????? (@ImMeme0) August 9, 2026

Source: @ImMemeo/X.com

Social media is the worst thing that ever happened to women. I don’t know how else to put it. There’s been a lot of handwringing, dire warnings, and breathless lectures about how the internet has sent young men down a dark path to extremism, and led them into the clutches of Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, and whomever. 

At a certain point, we need to have a very serious conversation about the full-blown psychotic break TikTok, Instagram, and other social media apps have provoked in not all but many women. And not necessarily just young women, either. Middle-aged women are spending all day developing schizophrenic theories about murder cases and posting videos about them and forming communities of support for mass murderers and child killers.  

In a way, at least, these are the most honest videos in the entire genre. These women are at least being transparent about their motivations: They revere Lindsay Clancy because she murdered her children. 

This is the unspoken reality of the Clancy case. Some of her advocates are unstable women with a bad case of TikTok brain. But for others, there’s something else going on. 

She’s a folk hero among some Leftist women, because Leftist women believe that mothers have the constitutional right to execute their children at any point, whether it’s the moment of birth, or 8 months after the fact, or 5 years after the fact. 

Leftist women don’t quite have the political capital to formally legalize these post-birth abortions, so they’ve settled on an alternative solution: the insanity defense. And it’s working out very well for them.

That’s why Massachusetts — the state where this trial is taking place — just this week passed a law permitting abortion up until the moment of birth. It’s not because they believe children become human once they’re born. It’s because they want to continue pushing the envelope further and further, until post-birth abortion is legal.

No matter what you may hear in the media, the Lindsay Clancy case is not just about postpartum depression. It’s not even about SSRIs, at least not in isolation. 

It’s yet another referendum on the legality of post-birth abortion in this country, and the lengths that millions of modern American feminists will go to avoid facing the consequences of their own actions. 

Quite a few of these feminists truly believe that, if their life isn’t going well, a drug can fix it. And if a drug doesn’t fix it, maybe a murder will. 

Is there a constitutional right to execute your own children if they become inconvenient, years after their birth? With the Lindsay Clancy case, we’re about to find out — at least in the state of Massachusetts.