Pink Brigade In Clancy Case Promotes "Perp As Victim" Worldview

It’s not the best plan to write about something that’s been covered ad nauseam by both the legacy and conservative media. However, the Lindsay Clancy trial has exposed, to a frightening degree, the tendency of many people, not just women, to buy into shifting the blame for a horrific crime from the perpetrator to any number of other players – anything to avoid condemning the criminal for what they did. 

There are several reasons why this trial has garnered so much attention. First, and most obvious, the crime involved the murder of innocent children by their mother. This act is the ultimate betrayal of a mother’s responsibility to love, nurture, and protect her children. Second, there is a fascination with various theories of why this woman committed such a heinous crime. It couldn’t be simply because she allowed evil impulses to control her behavior, but as a responsible adult, had a duty to stop before it was too late. No, there had to be something that was beyond her control instead.

Was it the “evil” pharmaceutical industry for providing antidepressants and other drugs that induced an otherwise unthinkable degree of insanity? Was it her husband’s lack of empathy and understanding for the postpartum trauma she was going through? Surely, according to the pro-Clancy protesters stationed outside the courtroom, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that poor Lindsay simply cracked under the immense pressure her situation caused, and the pink-garbed protesters all but said, “there but for the grace of God (or the “universe”) go I.”

As the trial has progressed, a third and eye-opening reason has caused a new flurry of attention. That is, it seems that all but one juror bought into the Clancy-as-victim mentality and were thus ready to deliver a “not guilty” verdict. The one holdout made the mistake of admitting to some level of doubt, but apparently not enough to go along with the other 11 members. This admission has given the defense attorney ammunition to insist that this “rogue” juror be relieved of their duties, since they, according to the defender, did not comply with the instruction to only vote for a guilty verdict when the evidence shows a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Clancy’s ex-husband has stated in interviews that (1) his ex-wife is not a “monster,” (2) she seemed to be fine that fateful day when she sent him off to run errands while she murdered her children and then attempted suicide, and (3) he has forgiven her even as he’s moved on by marrying someone else. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like something’s a little off with this man. His ability to compartmentalize the horrific would make Bill Clinton blush. How could he not know, in the months after the birth of their third child, that something was drastically wrong with his wife? Why else would she have been prescribed a cocktail of antidepressants to cope with an apparently severe case of postpartum depression? There should have been red flags all over the place if he was truly paying attention. My goodness, she even checked herself into a mental health institution for a few days not long before the murders. She obviously knew, in her few lucid moments, that she desperately needed help that the drugs were clearly not providing.

Amidst all of the clamor and controversy, this case has provided a cautionary tale for the medical profession to rethink the role of antidepressants in relieving postpartum depression. It might just be that mom needs some added emotional and logistical support from loved ones more so than the drugs, along with counseling and/or therapy, to make it through that time safely, for her and her children’s sakes.

Since a mistrial was declared last week, there will be a retrial in the near future. If I were the prosecuting attorney and could get away with it, I would post a photo in court of the three precious children and display that throughout the new trial. Lest the new jury forget who the real victims were.