Lindsay Clancy&#8217;s defense attorney has finally publicly rejected the nasty TikTok conspiracies targeting her former husband, Patrick Clancy.
During a Wednesday appearance on &#8220;CBS Mornings,&#8221; Kevin Reddington was again asked about speculation accusing the grieving father of involvement in the deaths of his three children. Unlike his softer response after Lindsay&#8217;s mistrial, Reddington directly denounced the claims as false and harmful.
&#8220;Stop with the speculation and horrific conspiracy allegations” that Patrick was involved in “some massive conspiracy to kill his children,” Reddington said.
“It’s horrific what this man has been going through and he’s entitled to move on with his life,” he continued. “It’s obvious that Patrick was a man who stood by his wife through all of the difficulty of the medical issues, the psychiatric issues, the pharmaceutical issues, and even up to the time of the trial and even after the trial.”
The conspiracies targeting Patrick have persisted online despite Lindsay acknowledging that she killed the couple&#8217;s three children. Her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible. Her murder trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked.
Patrick’s attorney, Howard Cooper of Todd &amp; Weld, put influencers, celebrities, and other social-media personalities “on notice” Tuesday, warning that Patrick and his family are prepared to pursue legal action over defamatory claims about Patrick’s supposed involvement in the children’s deaths.
Cooper said the family has been forced to endure “relentless, escalating, and destructive defamation&#8221; as well as &#8220;outright falsehoods” and warned that those spreading such claims could face legal consequences.
Reddington&#8217;s comments Wednesday were notably much less dismissive than when he addressed the conspiracies previously. In an interview following the mistrial, for example, he said he did not “dismiss” people on TikTok and Instagram who were looking into the case, adding that it was “amazing” how they were able to “ferret out facts” and conduct their own “investigations.”
In a 911 call made by Patrick, which was referenced by Reddington on Wednesday, the father first speaks with a dispatcher after finding Lindsay on the ground outside their home following her suicide attempt. While on the phone, he then discovers the bodies of his three children in their basement. &#8220;Oh my God!&#8221; Patrick says on the call, according to reporters in the courtroom. &#8220;She killed the kids!&#8221;
The judge in the case granted Patrick&#8217;s request to allow only the audio of the call to be played in the courtroom, barring wider release.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-hidden-bombshell-female-lindsay-clancy-jurors-just-exposed?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+Hidden+‘Bombshell’+Female+Lindsay+Clancy+Jurors+Just+Exposed">The Hidden ‘Bombshell’ Female Lindsay Clancy Jurors Just Exposed</a>

US-CRIME-TRIAL-CLANCY

Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Finally Blows Up TikTok Conspiracies Surrounding Case

Clancy Lawyer Finally Explodes TikTok Conspiracies Surrounding Case

defamation

lindsay clancy

patrick clancy

postpartum psychosis

tiktok

“On September 11th, 2001, 19 Islamist extremists hijacked four airplanes and flew two of them directly into the World Trade Center at the instruction of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.”
That&#8217;s an example of a sentence that could get you banned or penalized on TikTok.
Over the last few weeks, I — along with countless other political content creators — have been censored, throttled, and threatened with bans on the Chinese-owned app for simply stating basic facts about Islam, political leaders who practice the faith, and/or terrorism happening in our country and around the world.
I&#8217;ve always dealt with some censorship on TikTok. I have to appeal at least 30% of my videos after they&#8217;re abruptly taken down upon posting, with no explanation beyond the red banner reading &#8220;you&#8217;ve violated community guidelines&#8221; (translation: something might have offended someone). But something has changed in the last month.
It started with a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Db8LXwnJ5NP/">video</a> about Hasan Piker and the New Left. The entire video consisted of me quoting the Twitch streamer, his friend Abdul El-Sayed, and Francesca Hong. I noted that Piker has said he believes America deserved 9/11, that he wants more immigrants to come into your countries and “f*ck” &#8220;your&#8221; sisters and daughters, and that he&#8217;s expressed a desire to see the white race and white middle class destroyed. I pointed out that Abdul El-Sayed campaigned at a mosque whose imam has openly called for the killing of &#8220;infidels,&#8221; and that former Wisconsin Senate candidate Francesca Hong has said she hates Thanksgiving.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1172257" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414.jpg" alt="" width="490" height="574" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414.jpg 1320w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414-256x300.jpg 256w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414-491x576.jpg 491w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414-768x900.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6414-1311x1536.jpg 1311w" sizes=" (max-width: 490px) 100vw, 490px" /></div>
The video was blocked immediately. Why should I be punished for simply relaying the heinous things our new political Left is screaming into the ether?
My next video, a recap summarizing the week&#8217;s insanities, was also flagged within minutes. Likely because I mentioned Islamic foot-washing stations at Dallas airports, and the fact that two conservatives dressed as Muslims exposed how easy it is to register non-citizens to vote in Minneapolis.
Then, of course, my video about Abdul El-Sayed’s sister, an America-hating, Columbia professor, professional POS, was also quickly removed.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1172247" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6413.jpg" alt="" width="1320" height="728" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6413.jpg 1320w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6413-300x165.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6413-1024x565.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6413-768x424.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1320px) 100vw, 1320px" /></div>
Infuriating is an understatement.
I have 243,900 followers on TikTok, where viewership translates directly into revenue. When a video gets removed, and if the Chinese communist overlords put it back up on my page, it’s often days or weeks later, and my viewership is abysmal.
To avoid this, I started whispering or mouthing certain &#8220;trigger&#8221; words — Muslim, Islam, rape, sexual assault — so as not to set off Big Brother. The result is often a video where I&#8217;m mouthing half my sentences while trying to explain current events, which would be funny if it weren&#8217;t so ridiculously absurd.
For instance, TikTok did not like my video discussing the U.K. pamphlet fiasco, in which the government was forced to put out a nine-page PDF for foreigners, outlining how to act like a civilized human in their once-civilized country. I can’t help that they had to spell out, in print, dozens of times, that it’s not okay to rape, touch, or advance upon girls under the age of 16. But clearly that has to be said.
My mouthing tactics didn&#8217;t work the first two times I posted that video. On the third try (after muting several more words and phrases), TikTok finally let it stay up. It got about 10,000 views. For reference, the same video got 1.1 million views on Instagram.
The next day, my “understanding womanhood in 2026” video, where I discussed the insanity surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case and articulately laid out why it was all happening, also failed their Orwellian &#8220;community guidelines.” The appeal took days, during which my TikTok viewership stalled. While on Instagram, the same video had already been seen and shared by over five million people.
Last week I posted a &#8220;positive political news&#8221; video honoring Dolly Parton, and it still hasn&#8217;t cleared the appeal process, likely because…well, I have no idea why.
I could not hate the algorithm developers more.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1172251" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415.jpg" alt="" width="422" height="817" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415.jpg 1057w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415-155x300.jpg 155w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415-297x576.jpg 297w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415-768x1487.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6415-793x1536.jpg 793w" sizes=" (max-width: 422px) 100vw, 422px" /></div>
And, of course, my two most recent videos about Islam were taken down, because apparently even mentioning the word holds racist and bigoted connotations.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1172253" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="317" height="689" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-scaled.jpg 1178w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-138x300.jpg 138w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-265x576.jpg 265w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-768x1669.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-707x1536.jpg 707w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/09/IMG_6416-943x2048.jpg 943w" sizes=" (max-width: 317px) 100vw, 317px" /></div>
This isn&#8217;t just happening to me. It&#8217;s happening to nearly every conservative creator on the app. Nate Friedman, an independent journalist who made a video exposing the &#8220;Islamic takeover of New York,&#8221; had his documentary banned and was stripped of the earnings that came with it. Xavier DuRousseau, a conservative commentator, was suspended from posting after multiple videos were removed and was forced to complete &#8220;educational training&#8221; about violent and hateful organizations.
This isn&#8217;t a Brave New World. It&#8217;s a frightening one.
The app is withholding millions of dollars from conservative creators, or anyone who points out the detriment of radical Islam or any other politically “untouchable” topics, while liberal creators are free to blabber on about anti-Christian propaganda, anti-Republican trash, and anything that melts the brain and misleads society.
One viral TikTok video could cover half my rent. Instead, they block me, dish out strikes, and never explain why.
But beyond the financial shackles they’ve bound us to, this utilitarian, dictatorial blackout is unbelievably dangerous because it creates a feedback loop where young people see only one side of the story.
Why do we think it is that a third of young voters like communism, an ideology that’s killed hundreds of millions of people? Why is it that young people have a growing affinity for political violence, Islam, and socialism?
Because young people are on TikTok.
Sixty-three percent of adults under 30 use the platform. So do 68% of teens ages 13 to 17. Gen Z users up to age 26 spend nearly three hours a day on this digital drug. And instead of seeing a variety of viewpoints and opinions, they’re getting gorged with videos by middle-aged white women explaining, for instance, that Christian Nationalism is the same as the Taliban.
We’ve literally never been more retarded in all of human history.
Which is the entire goal of our enemies. To dumb us down, neuter our brains, and keep us ignorant of their predation.
ByteDance, a Chinese company, still owns TikTok, even though U.S. operations are technically run through a majority-American joint venture, and ByteDance still controls the underlying algorithm. Weakening America&#8217;s resistance to communism serves their interests directly, and Islam is being used as one vehicle for that erosion. Which is part of why, a few years ago, it became a trend on the app to read bin Laden&#8217;s &#8220;Letter to America&#8221; and say he had a point.
Fast forward to today, we have a terror-sympathizing, communist-loving, sharia-pushing freak running for Senate in Michigan. We have a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-oil Democrat running for Senate in Texas, who <a href="https://x.com/LoneStar_PAC/status/2094167411662446629/video/1">play-preaches</a> by reciting Islamic poems in front of a pride flag. We have a political party whose number one most prominent influencer is on tape saying that he wants to wipe his *ss with the Constitution and that Hamas is “a thousand times better” than Israel.
And we have no way to communicate this to the youth on their most utilized platform.
Here in the West, Americans often believe we are untouchable. Physical war hasn&#8217;t reached our doorstep in a long time, and most of us are insulated from attacks happening elsewhere. But that doesn’t mean our adversaries have quit. They’re still chipping away at us, eroding our freedoms, and meddling in our elections by hindering our access to certain information.
This is an information war waged through an algorithm still designed and built by a Chinese company, and it disproportionately targets conservatives because we&#8217;re the ones fighting back. By shrinking our reach and amplifying the other, the Left wins. A Left that normalizes political violence, foreign interference, open borders, and blatant hostility toward constitutional norms.
A divided, historically illiterate, and increasingly radicalized generation is not a threat to Beijing, or any of our enemies who wish us dead. It’s a gift.
They’re conquering the feed so as not to have to conquer the soil. If we keep pretending this is just “content moderation,” we will lose the argument, then the election, then the country.
If we’re going to keep TikTok alive in the United States, at least don’t let it kill half the creators who use it.

image_127ff051

TikTok Is Shadowbanning Me To Protect Islam And Communists

bytedance

censorship

content moderation

islam

opinion

There is no mystery about the most important fact in the Lindsay Clancy case: Lindsay Clancy killed her three children.
She admitted that she did it. Her own defense does not dispute it. There are serious questions for a jury to consider about her mental state and criminal responsibility, but who killed these children is not one of them.
And yet, spend enough time watching videos about this case on TikTok, and you can find yourself in an entirely different reality.
Videos circulating on the platform offer an endless stream of alternative narratives. Some accuse Clancy’s then-husband, Patrick, of being responsible. Others claim the timeline points to someone else, or that overlooked evidence changes what happened. There is also a focus on SSRIs and other medications as an explanation that effectively transfers responsibility away from Clancy.
I understand why these theories have found such a receptive audience among women, particularly mothers. This crime is so horrific that wanting another explanation is an entirely human response.
It is almost impossible to comprehend that a fellow mother could take the lives of the children she carried, delivered, fed, bathed, comforted, and tucked into bed. Motherhood is so fundamentally associated with protecting our children that when we are confronted with something this horrific, the mind searches for an explanation that makes it easier to understand.
There must be something else we don’t know. There must be some missing piece that will make this make sense.
I don’t think the majority of women drawn into these theories are stupid or gullible. I think many are confronting a truth so unbearable that they desperately want something else to be true.
And that very human impulse is exactly where social media can become dangerous.
I have spent my career in public relations and new media watching how stories take hold, narratives spread, and repetition shapes public perception. Social media has transformed that process. Algorithms are constantly learning which stories, emotions, and arguments hold our attention and serve us more of them.
TikTok’s algorithm does not know why you stopped scrolling. It does not know that a video suggesting an alternative explanation gave you a moment of relief from something you could barely comprehend. It only knows that you watched.
Pause on another video questioning the timeline, watch one about SSRIs, or spend time reading comments insisting there is more to the story, and TikTok learns what holds your attention. Then, it gives you more.
What begins as an attempt to understand an incomprehensible crime can become an hours-long journey through content reinforcing the explanation you most want to believe. The algorithm doesn’t have to convince you that any particular conspiracy theory is true. It only has to make the truth feel uncertain.
And in the Clancy case, we are seeing that online obsession spill into the real world.
For six weeks, supporters have gathered outside the courthouse, filling parking lots, wearing pink and, in some cases, traveling from as far away as the United Kingdom. A trial about the deaths of three young children has become something that can feel disturbingly like a cause, or even fandom. And in at least one case, that fervor appears to have crossed a serious line. A 56-year-old woman was arrested for alleged jury intimidation after authorities say she filmed and photographed jurors from the restricted parking lot following their dismissal.
As someone who works in media, I find that progression so alarming. A narrative becomes content. Content becomes community. Community becomes identity. And once a belief becomes part of someone’s identity, contradicting evidence can begin to feel less like information and more like an attack.
Another important distinction is being lost. We can have tremendous compassion for someone suffering from severe mental illness while still acknowledging what she did. We can have serious conversations about postpartum mental health and psychiatric medication without treating viral claims as established medical fact. And we can consider whether mental illness affected Clancy’s criminal responsibility without inventing an entirely different perpetrator.
The accusations against Patrick Clancy are one particularly cruel consequence. A father who lost all three of his children has been turned into a character in strangers’ online theories.
But this is bigger than one criminal trial. The same machinery operates across politics, health, parenting and virtually every major cultural debate. An algorithm discovers which emotion keeps us watching and surrounds us with content that reinforces it until repetition feels like corroboration and agreement feels like evidence.
That is why mocking women who have fallen into this rabbit hole misses the point. Their initial reaction is understandable. The danger is what happens when empathy becomes identification, curiosity becomes obsession and an algorithm continually reinforces what we already want to believe.
I understand the instinct to look at this case and think there has to be something else.
But sometimes there isn’t.
Misinformation doesn’t always begin with a ridiculous lie. Sometimes, it begins with a terrible truth we desperately wish were not true. Social media finds that wish, feeds it, and, if we aren’t careful, can turn it into something we believe.
***
Vanessa Santos is a political communications specialist and the president and CEO of Renegade D.C.

Hundreds of pink-clad supporters gather at courthouse ahead of Lindsay Clancy trial

Lindsay Clancy TikTok Is Melting Women’s Brains

misinformation

social media

true crime

Several women featured in a video by conservative reporter Kaitlin Bennett defended Lindsay Clancy — the Massachusetts mother on trial for killing her three young children — with some saying they had followed the case on the social media platform TikTok.
Clancy, 36, does not dispute that she strangled 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan with exercise bands inside the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. She has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, as her defense team is arguing that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
One woman told Bennett that she did not believe Clancy killed her children, despite the fact that both sides in the trial agree that she did.
Another woman, who was pushing a stroller, said she wasn&#8217;t sure what to think but pointed to sleep deprivation and Clancy&#8217;s former job as a labor-and-delivery nurse.
&#8220;Yes, we feel she&#8217;s very sleep-deprived,&#8221; the woman said. &#8220;Her job as a labor and delivery nurse, working night shifts, and three children is a lot.&#8221;
Clancy was on maternity leave after giving birth to Callan, who was eight months old when she killed him. She ultimately decided not to return to work.
Another woman told Bennett that she had children and did not rule out hurting them.
&#8220;Would you ever hurt them?&#8221; Bennett asked.
&#8220;Yes and no,&#8221; the woman replied. &#8220;As a mom or as a dad, I think that you are not perfect.&#8221;
Asked what consequences Clancy should face, one woman said Clancy is &#8220;already in a wheelchair,&#8221; suggesting that this should be punishment enough.
Another said Clancy&#8217;s husband, Patrick Clancy, &#8220;should go to jail for negligence,&#8221; adding, &#8220;he needs to take care of his kids, and that was his responsibility.&#8221;
At least three women said they get their news on the trial from TikTok, where there have been countless conspiracies circulating, including claims that Patrick killed the kids and then framed Clancy.
Clancy has received a number of messages of support online, particularly from women who argue the healthcare system failed to recognize and properly treat her deteriorating mental condition.
Hundreds of supporters, many of them women dressed in pink, gathered outside the Plymouth County courthouse last month to express solidarity with Clancy.
A separate GoFundMe campaign for Clancy&#8217;s parents has raised more than $1 million.
The jury completed its fourth day of deliberations Tuesday without reaching a verdict. Jurors sent Judge William Sullivan a note saying they had been unable to reach a unanimous decision despite hours of discussion, but Sullivan instructed them to continue deliberating.
They are expected to continue deliberations on Wednesday.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/lindsay-clancy-jury-hits-stunning-roadblock-after-days-of-deliberations?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Lindsay+Clancy+Jury+Hits+Stunning+Roadblock+After+Days+Of+Deliberations">Lindsay Clancy Jury Hits Stunning Roadblock After Days Of Deliberations</a>

Disturbing Video Shows Women Backing Lindsay Clancy: ‘Very Sleep Deprived’

Disturbing Video Shows Women Backing Lindsay Clancy: ‘She Was Sleep Deprived’

kaitlin bennett

massachusetts

TikTok Parents

It’s Time To Mansplain Parenting To TikTok Moms Who Resent Their Own Kids

motherhood

parenting

TikTok has banned a video — citing a &#8220;violation of Community Guidelines&#8221; — that challenges the narrative suggesting that Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when she killed her three young children.
Very few people appear to have mixed feelings about the murder trial of Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy: most either believe that she&#8217;s guilty and knew exactly what she was doing, or that she was out of her mind due to postpartum psychosis and did not fully comprehend her own actions. But it&#8217;s the ones who have declared their support for Clancy — even taking to social media to claim that her husband was the guilty one — who were the target of the video in question.
Former Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt laid out the case in a video posted across multiple platforms on Sunday, arguing that the wave of people defending Clancy were suffering from &#8220;mass psychosis&#8221; — and he traced its origins to well before the Clancy trial, tracing the origins instead to the COVID-19 pandemic and the rules that must be obeyed but never questioned.
<div style="max-width: 728px; margin: 0 auto;">
<iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; margin: 20px auto 5px; border: 0;" src="https://player.mux.com/ava4sleMasJ7k5phgZjt02KNwqE02L5lQS?metadata-video-content-type=embed_video&amp;metadata-video-id=6718355e-a016-4046-8c24-348a408348dd&amp;metadata-video-stream-type=on-demand&amp;metadata-video-title=2026-8-25%20Spencer%20Pratt%20Challenges%20Clancy%20Narrative%20&amp;poster=https%3A%2F%2Fdailywireplus-v2.imgix.net%2Fimages%2Fembedded-videos%2F1c04d114-07f0-43a9-ad78-458230fbfe29.jpg&amp;autoplay=false&amp;accent-color=%23DB3D3B&amp;primary-color=%23ffffff&amp;secondary-color=%23000000" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Credit: @spencerpratt/X.com
</div>
&#8220;Our institutions completely eviscerated their own reputation and dignity,&#8221; Pratt said, adding, &#8220;If you went paddleboarding, alone in the middle of the ocean, you needed to be arrested for killing Grandma. But of course, if you riot with 500,000 people, that&#8217;s totally fine, because viruses take a timeout when it comes to social justice.&#8221;
The constant bombardment of narratives that objectively did not make sense, Pratt said, did more than breed mistrust: they rewired the way people processed information — and even reality. Every tragedy started to look like a conspiracy — and people who fed on conspiracy quickly capitalized on that for profit.
He pointed to the &#8220;fans&#8221; who&#8217;d emerged when Luigi Mangione gunned down United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood — and then pivoted to address Clancy. In her case, he said, it was a mass hijacking of maternal instinct and unconditional love &#8220;reallocated towards whatever group the algorithm has designated as the vulnerable class.&#8221;
Instead of feeling empathy for the three small children who were strangled to death by their own mother — or for the father who came home with takeout for dinner and discovered his babies unresponsive and near death — the empathy was being directed solely toward the woman whose actions had been the source of that pain.
Popular movies and television shows had primed the population for the redirection of empathy, taking objectively awful characters — like a chemistry teacher who became a drug kingpin and destroyed his own family — and making them sympathetic.
Disney’s “Maleficent” held up a character who embodied evil for the sake of evil in the original “Sleeping Beauty” and portrayed her as the betrayed lover who only took the wrong path because she was in pain. “Wicked” turned the good-vs-evil narrative on its head. “Dexter” made a wide audience identify with a sociopathic serial killer. And those are just a few examples among thousands, all designed to qualify — and thus minimize — objective evil, making it more difficult to identify.
While that trend is certainly problematic, it’s also protected as free speech and free expression. The real problem arises when challenges to the narrative are censored — or, in the case of COVID, targeted as “misinformation.”
TikTok moved to do just that when the platform banned Pratt’s video — which also should have been protected as free speech and expression.
“Child-murderer supporters on TikTok are mass-reporting my video on the Clancy insanity. It&#8217;s wild to see the allergic reaction people have to truth. It&#8217;s like when a demon gets sprayed with holy water,” Pratt responded on Tuesday.

Nurse practitioner who treated Lindsay Clancy testifies about Duxbury mother’s desperation to improve amid postpartum struggles

TikTok Nixes Video That Challenges Popular Narrative Around Lindsay Clancy

TikTok Nixes Video That Challenges Preferred Narrative Around Lindsay Clancy

spencer pratt

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial is generating a wide variety of reactions, very few of which are grounded in reality. From online crime fighters thinking they’ve <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-tiktok-sleuths-turned-a-horrific-child-killing-into-a-twisted-online-soap-opera">sussed out</a> the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-wine-mom-delusion-of-turning-real-murder-into-internet-content">real story</a> to the “<a href="https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/2089812076613034211">same, Lindsay</a>” trend on TikTok, social media is once again proving that the internet was probably a mistake. What initially held the promise of a vast, instantly accessible super-library has morphed into a medium more focused on ignorance and outrage than on information. 
This quest for clicks also means some mistakes are going to be made, such as this post on X claiming that there’s a new trend of moms filming themselves <a href="https://x.com/jackunheard/status/2090098201927811097">throwing ice cubes into their tubs</a> as a way of getting their anger out. The implied message is that this is in response to the Clancy trial. Except it’s not, at least not the video in that post. That particular ice-throwing mom uploaded her video in 2024, several years before the trial began. She also followed it up with a post about not bottling up your emotions and instead finding non-destructive ways to get them out of your system so you can move on without causing actual harm. That’s a position even Cosmo Kramer <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYWE7QgYGvM">agrees with</a>. 
The difference between Kramer and the MomToker, though, is that actor Michael Richards was following a script in his portrayal of Kramer’s breakdown, and the audience was in on that fact, whereas the mom on TikTok was a little more oblique about the fact that she was also performing for the camera. One doesn’t have to watch much of her content to realize that it’s all an act. Sure, she is a mom, and being a mom is stressful, but the involved husband and father pops up here and there. Her parents are close by and serve as a support network. Most of her videos aren’t even that over the top and are instead of her doing mundane things like grabbing a latte before heading to the playground with her daughter or making a few hot dogs for her husband and daughter while the two of them jump on the trampoline. 
Granted, she did comment on the Clancy case, saying “I see you,” which is therapy-speak for recognizing the pain and despair that Clancy was and likely is still experiencing. She did not offer a “same, Lindsay,” though. She didn’t comment on what verdict she’d like to see. Generally, she just posts videos of the online persona she’s created, which is another issue altogether and has nothing to do with gruesome murders. Chiefly, it’s fine to get frustrated or to project an idealized image to the world. Most everyone does. Serenity now may not be the answer; filming yourself actually losing it is definitely not. 
Unless the question is, How do I get clicks? Which brings us back to the destructive nature of the modern internet. We could be reading great works of literature, seeing vivid pictures of paintings we might not ever be able to visit in person, or figuring out how to solve problems. Instead, we’re mostly <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY">the baddies</a>. 
And this is too often true regardless of which side of the debate, whatever the debate is, we find ourselves on. To stick with Clancy, yes, the insane conspiracy theories positing that her husband Patrick murdered the kids and framed her with an elaborate plot involving a body double and a stolen Apple Watch, because Patrick had to spoof her location, are not our finest work as a species. Similarly, the armchair shrinks, suggesting that the reason Lindsay is garnering sympathy from so many moms is that they all sometimes think about killing their children, though some of her supporters are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY">providing fodder</a> for that hypothesis, which is at best unhelpful.
At worst, with the opposing sides of the argument bringing back the “<a href="https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/198/not-all-men-patriarchy-misogyny">yes, all men</a>” arguments from a few years ago and adding “yes, all women” for good measure, we’re getting to a point where it’s increasingly hard to <a href="https://youtu.be/wRVtws_Pz-Q?si=dL81eyZF3NN1qpw6&amp;t=32">have a civilization here</a>. With birth rates declining, and with all the concomitant <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-most-dangerous-thing-ai-may-replace-isnt-your-job?author=Rich+Cromwell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=13&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+Most+Dangerous+Thing+AI+May+Replace+Isn%E2%80%99t+Your+Job">issues</a> that bring, heterofatalism is not the answer we’re looking for. 
For those who don’t spend too much time online, heterofatalism is <a href="https://lampoonmagazine.com/heterofatalism-straight-dating-women-desire-men-survival-instinct/">the idea</a> that it’s over for normal relationships. Men are too needy, women are too spoiled, and there’s no hope for any of us should we give in to the trap of traditional couplings. It’s best to just accept that we’re cooked and go back to doomscrolling our preferred apps. Except it doesn’t have to be this way. 
Writing in the New York Times, Magdalene J. Taylor argues that there is much in the world of dating and romance for men and women <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/31/opinion/heteropessimism-straight-dating-love.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6lA.zye9.M4xnEtdBT8pz&amp;smid=url-share">to be optimistic about</a>. Despite claims to the contrary, married people are the healthiest and happiest. Having a support system at home, as the ice thrower does and Lindsay Clancy did, makes life easier, not harder. We’re living in a time of unparalleled freedom, abundance, and choice, so, Taylor writes, “Let’s not squander that freedom, giving it all up in favor of spending more time getting angry on the internet.”
One part of that is staying bound to those around us, the ones we can see and smell and hug, instead of hitting “record.” Another is not to extrapolate one woman’s psychotic break into generalizations about every woman on the planet. And yet another is to accept that sometimes both men and women can and will do bad things and that there’s rarely a true crime twist waiting to shock us in the third act. 
Mostly, though, it’s to remember that people working for clicks aren’t working for connections or even for understanding. 
All people are going to have days when they’re down, when they feel compelled to hurl a few swears, when they pop off in embarrassing and counterproductive ways. There’s really no reason to create a permanent record of that, so stop it. And if you come across someone who can’t help themselves and must do so, remember that they’re not representative of entire populations. The girl you meet in the produce aisle is highly unlikely to become a murderer. The guy you start talking to while waiting in line to drop off an Amazon return is probably not a tyrant who wants to subjugate you and drain your life force. 
There will always be the temptation to make sense of the wholly irrational. There will always be the desire to place blame, to find the bogeyman to serve as the source of all the bad, but that’s rarely how life works. Rather, life works by talking to one another and remembering that the pixelated representations we see of people online are too often <a href="https://youtu.be/pAQ3JuXkDkU?si=z0n-bpi3Py88f5u9&amp;t=11">a copy of a copy of a copy</a>. The trick is to see past the copies, the sacrificial lambs upon which we place our fears, and remember the humanity of the people standing all around us. And the first step toward accomplishing that goal is to look them in the eyes instead of looking at them on a screen. 
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: @rcromwell4.
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-2211585794

The Dark Side Of America’s Lindsay Clancy Obsession

dating and relationships

Earlier this week, we discussed this case of Lindsay Clancy, a horrifying case in which a woman was, in my opinion, obviously suffering from postpartum psychosis and then killed three of her children and tried to commit suicide.
It&#8217;s a horrifying case.
There are differences between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. They have the same basic cause, but very, very different effects.
There are a bunch of women who are now taking advantage of the fact that there is sympathy for a woman who had serious psychosis, destroyed three lives, and then destroyed her own in the most horrible fashion. These women are trying to claim that they have the same issues that Lindsay Clancy did.
If you do, you should be hospitalized immediately.
That&#8217;s the reality. You should be in a mental hospital. Lindsay Clancy should have been in a mental hospital because she had postpartum psychosis, which made her dangerous to herself and others.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-show-ep-2490?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
If you are saying you are the same as Lindsay Clancy, that is because you are truly self-serving and narcissistic — or you&#8217;re dangerous. Those are the only two choices. That’s because if you&#8217;re pretending you&#8217;re the same as the person who killed her three kids with an exercise band and then tried to commit suicide by cutting her wrist and jumping out of the second story window, then either you really ought to be under professional care 24 hours a day in an institution or you are a bad person, because what you&#8217;re doing here is not the same thing.
Conflating these things is not rational, reasonable, or sympathetic. If what you&#8217;re trying to say is, “I&#8217;m suffering from postpartum depression,” you can do that without identifying with the woman who must wish she had never suffered from it.
TikTok is rotting brains, absolutely rotting brains. A woman released a TikTok in which she wrote, “Same, Lindsay.”
“Same, Lindsay” is not a trend. If you put out a video that says “Same, Lindsay,” we should immediately investigate you and put you in a mental hospital because one of two things is happening: Either you are saying that you feel the same way Lindsay Clancy did right before she murdered her children because she had postpartum psychosis — in which case you need to be looked at under professional care full-time — or you are searching for empathy from people who are bereft of any sense of rationality.
This is bad, self-serving, narcissistic — and it&#8217;s trash. It&#8217;s a trash thing to do. TikTok is making people stupid, narcissistic, and ridiculous. These videos are ridiculous.
Allie Beth Stuckey tweeted, “Your wife probably shouldn&#8217;t be on TikTok.”
Yup. If you&#8217;re taking a video of yourself saying, “Same, Lindsay,” with you crying, with you so depressed that you feel like you can&#8217;t handle things, what are you doing on TikTok?
Shouldn&#8217;t you be doing something else to make yourself happy? This is not where happiness lives. This self-centeredness is disgusting. It is gross and vile and morally wrong.
You&#8217;re making a category error again. Postpartum depression is real. Get the treatment you need.
Postpartum psychosis is real, and you should probably be in an institution until you are properly medicated and you reach a point where we know that you&#8217;re not a risk to yourself or others.
But if you&#8217;re a person who&#8217;s suffering and you don&#8217;t have either of those things, it’s wrong to identify as what you are not.
And if you are a person who has postpartum depression and you are likening yourself to the woman who murdered her children, what are you doing?

IMG_6178

TikTok Trend Rotting Our Culture From The Inside

mental health

postpartum depression

The internet doesn&#8217;t like being called <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DcMobm6STj4/">weird</a>. I made the grave error Tuesday of calling certain corners of it exactly that, in light of their weirdness. Namely: women on TikTok participating in the <a href="https://x.com/LukaLev/status/2089696345539899636/video/1">&#8220;Same, Lindsay&#8221;</a> trend, posting videos of themselves crying, holding their babies, being mothers, implying they&#8217;re standing in the same shoes as Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother of three who in 2023 strangled her children — Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months) — with three separate exercise bands in the family&#8217;s basement, after sending her husband out to run errands.
&#8220;Same, Lindsay.&#8221; Because they feel for her. They get it. They&#8217;ve been there.
These women are racking up hundreds of thousands of likes for expressing sympathy with a child killer, theorizing about what &#8220;prompted&#8221; her, or floating conspiracies about who actually did the strangling.
<a href="https://x.com/dyingscribe/status/2088452216021467551">&#8220;You&#8217;ll never make me hate Lindsay Clancy.&#8221;</a> &#8220;Me when I had to ask the neighbor to bathe her because I thought I would drown her.&#8221; &#8220;NEW THEORY: He killed the kids.&#8221; &#8220;I had my first dream about little Cora, she was being SA&#8217;d by him (the father). <a href="https://x.com/GPMLLC/status/2088933970633253318">Hopefully Lindsay gets justice.&#8221;</a>
This is super weird, because she is on trial for murder; neither the defense nor the prosecution disputes that she did it. What they&#8217;re debating is punishment: prison or a psych ward.
Though the outcome is binary, the online reaction has splintered into half a dozen conclusions about a horrific, unimaginable tragedy: those who believe she committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder; those who believe she did it but isn&#8217;t criminally liable because she was in a state of psychosis; those who believe she did it but bears no fault at all, because the medical system and her husband failed her; and those who believe she didn&#8217;t do it at all, insisting the real culprit is her husband.
Let’s examine each.
The prosecution argues she wasn&#8217;t, beyond a shadow of a doubt, &#8220;crazy&#8221; — that she engaged in deliberate premeditation and rational planning before following through. They point to the fact that she functioned normally on the day of the murders, January 24, 2023: she took her daughter to the doctor, played with her kids in the snow, texted her husband to grab takeout and pick up her daughter&#8217;s MiraLax, placed a coherent phone order with the restaurant, and returned her husband&#8217;s call from CVS to answer a question about Cora&#8217;s medication. She also mapped the driving distance to the restaurant, prosecutors say, to calculate how much time she&#8217;d have. Her DNA was on each exercise band.
The defense argues she was in the grip of an acute mental break and can&#8217;t be held criminally liable. Her attorney said in his opening statement that she has bipolar disorder, that her medication made it worse, and that on the day she killed her children she heard a man&#8217;s voice telling her, &#8220;This is your last chance. Kill the children so you can kill yourself.&#8221; She kept a detailed list of every medication her doctors had prescribed and was on six antipsychotics at the time, including Seroquel, which can cause hallucinations. She also kept a diary documenting her insomnia, paranoia, and delusions, and had told her mother and husband beforehand that she&#8217;d had thoughts of killing her children.
Internet sleuths looked at all of that and said: IGNORE.
Instead, it&#8217;s become another episode of &#8220;let&#8217;s blame everyone but the perp.&#8221;
Begin with the group that claims &#8220;the husband did it.&#8221; The facts: Patrick Clancy left the house around 5:15 p.m. to pick up takeout and grab MiraLax from CVS. Surveillance footage shows him arriving at CVS at 5:32, walking to the pediatric aisle, and calling Lindsay to ask if the generic brand was okay. (A very &#8220;typical man&#8221; thing to do.) She didn&#8217;t answer; about a minute later she called back, answered his question, and hung up — he later testified she sounded busy. Patrick then left CVS and is seen on video walking into the restaurant, ThreeV, at 5:54 p.m. He went home, found the bodies, and called 911 at about 6:11 p.m. Some are claiming, absurdly, that Patrick did it — either by hiring a body double or by making sure he was caught on camera at CVS, sprinting home to commit the murders, changing his shoes, and sprinting back out to grab the food. I&#8217;ll concede his shoes look different between the two videos, and he may have changed them; that could be due to any number of things, including the fact that it was snowy and wet outside. Hello, Massachusetts in January. Everything else he&#8217;s wearing stays the same. No body double. Logistically, it would have been impossible for him to zoom home at 5:35, throw his wife out a window with no signs of struggle, strangle three children for four minutes each, and still make it back to the restaurant, eleven minutes away, by 5:54.
Unless he also has a secret time machine.
The Candace Owens-inspired camp also points to her body temperature: 82 degrees, hypothermic, when recorded at South Shore Hospital. How could that have happened?! She must have been pushed out the window at some unspecified point in time by her husband after 5:34 and before 5:54! Or, more plausibly, she cut her wrists and neck, jumped out a second-story window, landed in the snow, severely injured her spinal cord, and lost the ability to shiver, inducing poikilothermia, a condition where the body can&#8217;t regulate its own temperature. Add blood loss, the shock factor, and common sense, and suddenly the low reading isn&#8217;t mysterious at all.
Debunked.
But even if he didn&#8217;t do it, the theory goes, the medical system is to blame: the doctors, the hospitals, even the first responders all failed her. I&#8217;d concede that the cocktail of medications she was prescribed, and was taking, could have caused a reaction severe enough to make an unthinkable act feel rational in the moment. That&#8217;s tragic, and it&#8217;s something Lindsay, in her current lucid state, will have to live with for the rest of her life.
But in the noise surrounding this horror, the conversation isn&#8217;t really about the children, or about medication and overprescription. It&#8217;s about how the man in her life wronged her, and how postpartum struggles can spiral into atrocity.
Even Lindsay&#8217;s former coworker Susan Davison, a nurse, <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/unsealed-court-documents-reveal-dozens-100925404.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZnAuY29tLw&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFARRfhT3yF1dz2w7BQMESITfqL24R5mYCAj75CglskLT30n7IhZKpaD8FrtyfbLc0oyMcQoT4SydhfQCBUoCeIM9spCyqq_qNciFsJpEfxe2_EAEM8Xwqq2qPZRm_XJoHAOGV0LyCiGHaDjpubQg4PpyVditb0CkmknJhxxuK_A">wrote in a letter</a> of support: &#8220;I could have been Lindsay. Any one of us could have been.&#8221;
Um, I couldn&#8217;t.
It&#8217;s evil. It&#8217;s the worst imaginable thing a person could do. It&#8217;s painful to think about the fight her eldest may have put up, the confusion on those little faces as the person they trusted most choked the light out of their eyes. To most of us, it&#8217;s unimaginable — which is exactly why so many people are trying to shove this case into a tidy box. She&#8217;s a murderer. She didn&#8217;t mean to. She&#8217;s the real victim.
But it isn&#8217;t that simple, and it&#8217;s weird that so many people are pretending it is.
It&#8217;s weird that her <a href="https://x.com/i/trending/2088991064514232368">GoFundMe</a> has raised almost $900,000 from “millions of women supporting [her] right now.”
It&#8217;s weird that women are simultaneously insisting that if only females ran the world we&#8217;d have peace and harmony, while also arguing that having a baby makes all of us crazy and unaccountable for our own actions.
It&#8217;s weird that we&#8217;re pretending mental illness doesn&#8217;t exist everywhere else — in lieutenant governors who fatally shoot their wives and themselves, in the homeless men who stab strangers on trains, in the young men who shoot CEOs in the back of the head, in the trans-identifying activists who cross the country to try to kill a treasury secretary.
It&#8217;s weird that feminists have grown so anti-men that they&#8217;ll ignore the basic facts of a case to protect a preferred narrative.
It’s weird that TikTokers are divining the true killer based on astrology charts.
It&#8217;s weird to joke about your own postpartum anxiety on TikTok in the same breath as a postpartum psychosis that left three breathing, innocent babies dead.
And I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s weird to point any of that out, or hope she goes away for a long, long time, because Cora, Dawson, and Callan don’t get a trend or a hashtag. They just don’t get anything, ever again, and it’s weird that we made it about everyone except them.

Screaming mouth on laptop screen with speech bubbles

I Called A Corner Of The Internet Weird. They Got Mad.

Clancy

Lindsay Clancy Defenders Are Just As Sick As She Is

abortion

insanity defense

politics

Ladies, what are we doing?
The internet is losing its ever-loving mind over the case of Lindsay Clancy, and it’s exposing how ridiculously lost we are as a populace.
The facts are straightforward and grotesque. In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy (née Musgrove), a Massachusetts mother of three, strangled her children — Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months) — to death with exercise bands in the basement of their Duxbury home. She had sent her then-husband Patrick out for takeout and a pharmacy run. While he was gone, she killed the kids, cut her own wrists and neck, overdosed, and jumped from a second-story window. She survived, paralyzed from the waist down. Patrick came home, found her in the snow, called 911, and discovered the bodies.
She had been drowning in severe postpartum anxiety, depression, insomnia, paranoia, and what defense lawyers call evolving psychosis (possibly bipolar disorder). She was on a heavy cocktail of psychiatric medications — reports count at least a dozen. She voluntarily checked into McLean Hospital and was discharged about three weeks before the killings. <a href="https://x.com/itskikidanger/status/2089395473912119435/video/1">Texts</a> and statements show she had told her mother and husband she was terrified, that the meds were making things worse, that she was having thoughts of harming the children, and that she wanted to be hospitalized. She also told people she desperately wanted to be a good mother and loved her kids.
Those kids are now dead, and she does not deny killing them.
But the trial now underway is not trying to answer “who did it?” but rather “was she criminally responsible?” If convicted of first-degree murder, she faces life without parole. If found not criminally responsible, she goes to a psychiatric facility, likely for the rest of her life. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not so psychotic that she lacked the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. Given the documented history, the medications, and the command hallucinations she described (“This is your last chance… kill the children so you can kill yourself”), that will be a steep climb.
That is the actual issue: cold-blooded or just crazy?
But instead of debating that, the online morons and wine moms of the world are churning out conspiracies faster than they go through a bottle of cabernet.
As soon as the trial opened, TikTok “sleuths” and online true-crime addicts decided the real story was that Patrick did it and framed her. Never mind the video and phone records that put him at CVS. Never mind that she admitted it. Never mind that her own defense is not contesting the killings. The conspiracy version requires a body double at the pharmacy, a manufactured psychosis, or some elaborate staging after he supposedly pushed her out the window. Their evidence? It doesn’t exist. But he did remarry… to another brunette?! Case closed. Put him behind bars, girls.
Some of them are <a href="https://x.com/IfindRetards/status/2089543379621412873/video/1">hanging</a> out of two-story windows with dish soap, trying to “prove” the blood pattern doesn’t match a jump. Others are raising nearly a million dollars on GoFundMe for her parents’ legal and travel expenses. Gross. I suppose parents can support their daughter, but the same online crowd that floods money to the killer’s family is busy turning the husband into the villain and treating the woman who strangled three children as the real victim.
Lefties (and the online true-crime crowd) raising money and sympathy for alleged murderers — hmm, where have we seen this before? Luigi Mangione, Karmelo Anthony, Decarlos Brown Jr., etc. Why do they always have to be so weird? Can’t we just say that the children were the victims, they didn’t deserve to die, it’s disgusting, and a tragedy that she didn’t get the help she needed before succumbing to her demons? 
No, apparently they can’t. Instead, they invert the moral order and make the perpetrator the underdog.
This is how a certain corner of the culture operates now. Bad is good, good is bad. Postpartum depression (very common) gets collapsed into postpartum psychosis (very rare — about 1 in 1,000). Some women are publicly <a href="https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/2089061541903732894/video/1">announcing</a> they “see themselves in Lindsay” and that they were “only one step away” from the same act. Come again? Ladies, if you are one step away from strangling your toddlers for four minutes each because a voice told you to, get help immediately. That is not solidarity. That is a confession that something is deeply wrong.
It’s the same selective empathy that treats born children as tragic victims in one breath and disposable in another. The same people rushing to cast the woman who killed three living, breathing kids as the real victim are often the ones who shrug at far higher numbers of aborted children every year.
The day the Left is consistent on one single issue will be the day I get to retire.
Lindsay Clancy was clearly, severely mentally ill. I feel pity for the person who went through that nightmare of paranoia and command hallucinations. The medical system might not have done all it could; the medication pile-up looks reckless. But she still did it. The three children who used to speak, walk, crawl, and laugh are gone because of what she did. She is not the victim. The children are. Treating her as the central tragic figure while inventing conspiracies about her ex-husband is a form of soft denial, and a particularly ugly one when it comes wrapped in man-hating projection and online theater.
The real question is still the one the jury has to answer: was the psychosis so complete that she was not responsible?
Everything else — the body-double theories, the soap experiments, the reflexive blame-shifting — is just people refusing to look at a hard, ugly truth. A mother killed her children. Mental illness may explain it. It does not erase it. And turning the case into a soap opera about “the husband did it” helps no one, except maybe Candace Owens, who now has an idea for her next cash-cow series.

The Wine Mom Delusion Of Turning Real Murder Into Internet Content

The trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three young children before attempting to take her own life, has become the latest obsession of a vast online community of women who have consumed so much true crime that they no longer seem capable of encountering a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-terrible-truth-about-the-lindsay-clancy-case">horrifying story</a> without searching for the secret truth underneath it. To these TikTok detectives, Clancy is another puzzle to be solved by women who have trained themselves to believe that every murder contains a conspiracy, every husband is potentially hiding something, and every apparent fact might be the clue that blows the whole thing open.
Across the internet, women are coming out of the woodwork to share “their truths” about what happened in the Clancy house that tragic day in 2023. Actress Lisa Rinna is the most famous example, boldly announcing online that she and her therapist had cracked the case: Patrick Clancy had murdered his own children and framed his wife. Never mind that Lindsay Clancy’s own defense does not contest that she killed them; her attorneys argue that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was therefore not criminally responsible for her actions.
The effect of true crime on women’s psyches goes well beyond seeing conspiracies everywhere; the rot has seeped far deeper. The favorite pastime of millions of American women has become listening as someone recounts, often in graphic detail, the rape, murder, and abuse of real people. It is naive to believe that consuming a steady barrage of brutality as entertainment would not eventually shape both how women see the world and how they respond to the suffering of the people in it. True crime is not simply a mindless distraction; it transforms the worst moments of real families’ lives into serialized entertainment, complete with heroes, villains, plot twists, and fan theories. The danger is not merely that it <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-dark-truth-behind-our-true-crime-obsession">poisons the mind</a>; it also poisons the soul.
Clancy is hardly the only woman to find herself at the center of the internet’s web of women solving imagined conspiracies. Strangely, despite having killed her three children, she has been lionized in comparison with Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, who has been ruthlessly harassed for months since her husband’s execution while speaking at an event at a Utah college. That inversion should itself be a warning that the true-crime mobs have lost their moral bearings: the mother who killed her three young children becomes the heroine, while the young mother who buried her husband after his brutal murder becomes the villain.
Clancy’s supporters have raised close to a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/lindsay-clancys-parents-get-massive-global-donor-support-fundraiser-surpasses-830k">million dollars</a> in crowdfunding efforts for her family, while hundreds of messages have poured in from women describing the empathy they feel for her because of their own postpartum struggles. There is no question that postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and even ordinary postpartum hormonal fluctuations can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate, including for women with considerable support, which, by all accounts, Clancy had. Patrick took three months of paternity leave, supported his wife taking five months herself, and later insisted on working from home, while the family also paid for daycare and a nanny. He made time for Lindsay to exercise, took over formula feedings, and actively participated in her repeated attempts to seek psychiatric care.
But something revealing about the community that has rallied around Clancy is this: The same female internet culture that consumes murder as entertainment has also made therapy, psychiatric diagnoses, and psychiatric medication ubiquitous subjects of casual conversation and even personal branding. Destigmatization morphed into something else: a culture in which taking powerful psychiatric medication is treated as casually as starting a new vitamin regimen.
When Clancy sought help, the answer she received again and again was medication: a succession of psychiatric drugs prescribed, adjusted, stopped, and replaced as her condition deteriorated. Clancy herself, despite being a labor-and-delivery nurse with a history of SSRI use, appears to have accepted this pharmaceutical carousel with little resistance, while her family placed enormous trust in the doctors directing it.
Clancy moved through a bewildering succession of medications and providers, with drugs started, stopped, and changed as her symptoms evolved. Whatever the jury ultimately decides about her criminal responsibility, that pharmaceutical churn deserves scrutiny in its own right.
For years we have worried about young men disappearing into the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-real-reason-young-men-are-flocking-to-the-manosphere">manosphere</a>, marinating in algorithmically reinforced grievance until they become angry, alienated, and unmoored from reality. The same thing is happening to women. The content is different — true crime instead of Andrew Tate, therapy-speak instead of pickup artists, psychiatric diagnoses instead of bodybuilding — but the effect is the same: an online world that leads its inhabitants to trust the stories they tell one another more than the reality in front of them.
In the Clancy case, that reality is almost unbearably awful: Three small children are dead, and their mother killed them. Yet an entire corner of the female internet has become so desperate for a twist ending, and so practiced at locating victimhood in the adult woman at the center of every story, that it can barely bring itself to see the actual victims. They were Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy, and no amount of amateur sleuthing or TikTok psychoanalysis should make us forget them.
***
Bethany Mandel (<a href="https://x.com/bethanyshondark" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@bethanyshondark</a>) is a homeschooling mother of six and a writer. She is the bestselling co-author, with Karol Markowicz, of “Stolen Youth: How Radicals Are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation.”
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Lindsay Clancy

How TikTok Sleuths Turned A Horrific Child Killing Into A Twisted Online Soap Opera

erika kirk

Menu