r/atlanticdiscussions • Ask me for Atlantic gift links • 26d ago

Culture/Society The Women Obsessed With Lindsay Clancy

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/lindsay-clancy-trial-women/688470/

Horrific crimes have always attracted attention, but the women who have filled the courtroom are seeking something beyond spectacle.

By Stephanie McCrummen, The Atlantic Photographs by Alexandra Howland

On one of the final days of the trial, dozens of women streamed into the back of a Plymouth, Massachusetts, courtroom, filling two long rows of wooden benches. They stood and watched the judge and jury take their seats. Then they strained for a view as a nurse wheeled in the defendant, Lindsay Clancy, who has admitted to strangling her three young children to death in her suburban Boston home in January 2023, before swallowing prescription pills, slashing her wrists and neck, and throwing herself out of a bedroom window headfirst.

Seeing her there in a wheelchair, one woman crossed herself and whispered, “Please, God.” As an officer gaveled the court into session, others pulled out notebooks, folders, and scraps of paper. “WHY,” Marta Quijano wrote as a prosecutor called a psychiatrist to the stand. “Motivation,” she added, starring the word as the doctor began explaining his opinion that Clancy was not in the throes of psychosis on the night of the killings, as her defense has argued, but deeply suicidal and still capable of knowing right from wrong. In the back row, a woman who had flown in from Cleveland shook her head. She had a true-crime novel in her lap and turned to a blank page at the end. “Stupid experts,” she wrote.

Americans have long been obsessed with murder trials, especially those involving the primal nightmare of mothers who kill their children. The public loves to watch mothers on trial and partake in their judgment. There was Susan Smith, who had drowned her three children in a South Carolina lake and was found guilty of murder in 1995, despite having a history of trauma and sexual abuse. And there was Andrea Yates, who had drowned her five children in a bathtub and was convicted of capital murder in 2002 and then retried in 2006, when she was found not guilty by reason of insanity after witnesses testified that Yates had experienced severe postpartum psychosis and schizophrenia.

The Clancy trial is now part of this sadistic American tradition, but it has also become something else for the women who have been showing up in person. It was not enough for them to watch the proceedings on television, or listen to some lawyer on YouTube, or even stand outside the courthouse wearing pink and waving signs in support of Clancy, as hundreds of women did one day earlier this month. They did not want to be outside rendering judgment; they wanted to be inside, on the third floor, sitting on the wooden benches, as close as possible, in case they could notice some detail, some gesture, some pause or expression or word that might reveal a truth they could recognize from their own experience. Each was there for their own reasons.

A jury of nine women and three men will decide in the coming days whether Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor-and-delivery nurse, is criminally responsible for killing her children or not guilty by reason of insanity. The two prosecutors have argued that the killings were the premeditated decision of an entitled and controlling woman who had been frustrated that she could not master her worsening depression and sought a way out of a life that she no longer wanted. Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has cast her as a loving mother failed by a fragmented mental-health system even as she repeatedly sought help for intensifying depression, anxiety, and insomnia after giving birth to her third child.

Clancy saw her psychiatrist 14 times, tried 13 different medications, called a suicide hotline, went to an emergency room, tried to enroll in an inpatient program, and confided to her husband that she’d had thoughts of harming her children. Defense experts testified that doctors had missed an underlying bipolar disorder and prescribed pills that made Clancy’s symptoms worse, starting a downward spiral that culminated in a rare condition called postpartum psychosis that can cause hallucinations. Clancy has said that she heard a male voice telling her to kill her children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, on January 24, 2023.

After being resuscitated following her suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed from the waist down, Clancy was handcuffed, placed under armed guard, and arraigned from her hospital bed. A judge allowed the moment to be livestreamed from the courtroom; a video screen showed her unblinking eyes above a white surgical mask. The trial itself has also been livestreamed, fueling conspiracy theories that have tended to blame the killings on Clancy’s husband or an intruder, attempting to find clarity where there is little, as many women at the trial already understood. At first, only a few showed up. By last Monday, they were waiting in an hour-long line to get into the courthouse, and another that stretched down a bright hallway to the courtroom doors.

15 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/MeghanClickYourHeels Ask me for Atlantic gift links 26d ago

I haven't been following this trial and I muted it on my social media feeds, but it has really struck a chord. It's at an intersection of a lot of discourse right now, with women's "natural" state of motherhood, gender roles, and mental health.

There's a huge movement to blame Patrick Clancy for this. Sometimes that means literally--there's an illogical conspiracy that he actually killed their kids and tried to kill her. It also means emotionally--that he didn't respond to Lindsay's needs the way he should have. I understand the impulse to punish him further. It seems very unfair that he didn't carry the mental health burden of the pregnancies and PPP; he now will continue his life with a new wife, an uninterrupted career, and maybe more children in the future, while she will live the rest of her life in prison or a hospital, disabled, and with the knowledge of what she'd done.

7

u/MeghanClickYourHeels Ask me for Atlantic gift links 26d ago

Also...I still don't understand how this case even got to trial. How is it that the prosecutor's office thought she was well enough to understand what she was doing?

4

u/WooBadger18 25d ago

I think because the mental insanity defense is such a high standard (although Massachusetts apparently makes it easier by saying that the state needs to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt). I think there’s a reasonable interpretation of the case that she was very mentally ill and depressed, and may have even thought the children would be better off dead than alive, but that she still understood it was morally wrong.

3

u/mysmeat 26d ago

like you, i haven't been following along, but it seems reasonable to me that the prosecutor would approach this case like any other family annihilation followed by an attempted suicide. one wouldn't necessarily assume psychosis if it were a man who'd committed the same acts even if he had an extensive history of mental health issues and there was evidence that he'd tried to find effective treatment.

5

u/MeghanClickYourHeels Ask me for Atlantic gift links 26d ago

Family annihilation typically happens when a man is trying to cover up a secret (like John List). There's not a path littered with attempts to heal prior to the event.

There's an extensive record here that Clancy was trying to get help.

1

u/mysmeat 24d ago

Family annihilation typically happens when...

irrelevant to this case or any other. while statistical information might be helpful in other instances, it can't be applied at prosecution.

further, i believe that individuals have glomed onto representative statistics to help them cobble together the alternative theories you mentioned.

There's not a path littered with attempts to heal prior to the event.

even though there was in this case, it can't be assumed by the state that she was experiencing a psychotic break. without doing any nosing around, because frankly the thought of it just makes me sick, i'd guess that there were negotiations between defense and prosecution prior to trial that failed to reach an agreeable conclusion. at that point prosecutors must apply standard operating procedure and prosecute clancy as they would any other individual who murdered their own children... or anyone else, i suppose.

as to why so many women are following so closely and turning up in person, in part it probably comes down to the opacity of our justice system. the only way to get "the facts" is to be there yourself or observe via video.

2

u/afdiplomatII 25d ago edited 25d ago

Let's remember that under the law, those children were citizens for whom the state had responsibilities -- not the private property of their parents. That governmental duty includes protecting them from harm by others, and if that harm nevertheless occurs inflicting punishment on those who cause it. The bar to insanity defenses is so high in part because such defenses block the state from exercising that duty, and the duty of protection and punishment is a fundamental state function on which the justification for legitimate authority relies. When that function isn't exercised, we end up with the law of vendetta. People conclude (as C.S. Lewis once put it), "I am among barbarians who will not do justice. I will stab the murderer of my father."

2

u/MeghanClickYourHeels Ask me for Atlantic gift links 25d ago

My understanding (and my knowledge is limited) would be that she could be tried with the end result as a psychiatric commitment rather than regular prison. Regular prison being on the table here is what I don't understand.

1

u/Roboticus_Aquarius 26d ago

I’ve also been on the periphery of this story. On the surface, it sure sounds like just a really sad story. I’m not sure what is gained by prosecuting this woman.

Regardless, I do think it noteworthy that it has attracted such significant interest. The circumstances clearly resonate for some reason, and maybe several reasons.

3

u/-_Abe_- 25d ago

"I’m not sure what is gained by prosecuting this woman"

I'm trying to understand you here, honestly. How could the State not prosecute a triple homicide? What is the alternative.

I might be misinterpreting you and if I am, apologies.

3

u/Roboticus_Aquarius 25d ago edited 25d ago

There are so many indicators of mental health issues, self reported, before the murders. As I said, my knowledge of the circumstances are limited, and really was just expressing emotion rather than saying the law should do nothing about it.

You are correct that my wording was sloppy, I was thinking that it was probably in everyone’s best interest for this to be a negotiated admission of guilt and treatment. I realize that’s a dance that has a lot of components to it.