The Lindsay Clancy trial has drawn widespread interest and clearly polarized many. Clancy’s whole defense is that she is a victim, and her murderous act against her three innocent children is someone else’s fault. Victimhood is so rampant in society that the defense is predictable. What also is predictable is that many in society have tolerated and promoted the innumerable killings of unborn children for more than fifty years and blunted their sensibilities against the death of small children.
Minds have been formed in the culture of death that instead of being outraged at the slaughter of the innocent, some people believe the right of the mother’s life supersedes all other considerations. The recent law in Massachusetts allowing women to abort a child up to the moment of birth is a clear example of this truism.
In his closing argument, Clancy’s lawyer systematically listed who he thinks is to blame for the killing of three small and vulnerable children. He bombastically accused the Commonwealth of ripping his client’s soul out of her. If anyone harmed her soul, it was she when she strangled her children to death with her exercise bands. The next bogeyman was eliciting sympathy about how pitiful the defendant is by being relegated to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. The Commonwealth did not force her to jump out the window; her being relegated to a wheelchair for life was Clancy’s decision and hers alone.
Next to be accused by her defense are the medical system and insurance, who supposedly did not take the care needed for a woman not to slay her children. The doctors and therapists behind the institution were blamed for not recognizing her condition, even though Clancy never followed their recommendations and never admitted to them that she had thoughts of homicide and suicide. According to her defense, Clancy was the victim of prescribed drugs, a regimen she chose to take or not. If Clancy didn’t have enough to point the finger at, there was the raison d’ětre of the case.
The claim of Clancy’s psychosis and the unexplainable male voice demanding she dispatch her children and herself. If anything became apparent from the testimony, it is how pathetic and unreliable mental health is. None of the experts could agree exactly what psychosis is, and the same is true with the voice she claimed she heard. The voice only surfaced right before the strangulation and was never heard again.
Plenty of responsibility for the horrific homicide to go around, except for Clancy’s role and agency. To support the narrative that someone other than Clancy should be held accountable, the defense paraded witnesses who testified to how good a mother she was to her children. The witnesses’ perceptions were based upon a very small number of observable interactions they had with her. Frankly, no one really knows what goes on behind the closed doors of a family.
The public was made aware of Clancy’s emotions when she loudly wailed in court during the autopsy photos of her three dead children. Those who supported her used the incident to argue that she was deeply saddened and still grieving them. Her outbursts are used by those defending her as proof she is a good mother. A good mother should never kill her kids, but she did, and people scramble to find an answer other than narcissism and evil.
If she is such a good mother, why in the heavens’ name is the trial happening at all? She admitted she was the only one who ended her children’s lives. The fact is not disputed. If she is such a good mother, why didn’t she plead guilty and take the punishment of a prison sentence to make amends for her actions instead of going to trial?
Pleading guilty and receiving a sentence would obviously require her to sacrifice her freedom. A mother’s most fundamental job is to sacrifice a good part of her life for the benefit of her children. Knowing she physically ended her children’s lives, why wouldn’t this “good mother,” regardless of whether she believes in the extenuating circumstances, just look at the situation as her fate now? Why is she trying so hard for her freedom? She cares about her life and is unwilling to pay for her crime.
You can determine whether she is a good mother, but justice cries out for three innocent children betrayed by the one who should have defended them. Good mothers don’t kill their children, and if they do, they would willingly pay the price for such horrendous acts.