Editor’s Note: This article contains references to infanticide and self-harm.
Over the past few weeks, my newsfeed and social media have been filled with new updates and theories on the Lindsay Clancy trial. The murder trial, which began on July 20, centers on the tragic deaths of Clancy’s three children in early 2023. Following the birth of her third child, Clancy sought medical treatment for severe depression and intrusive thoughts, among other mental health issues.
On Jan. 24, 2023, Clancy strangled her three young children to death using exercise resistance bands, then proceeded to cut her wrists and neck and jump from a second-story window in an attempt to take her own life. Clancy’s defense has argued that, at the time of the deaths, she was experiencing postpartum psychosis as a result of the failings of the medical system and thus is not criminally responsible for her actions.
My social media feed has been overtaken by this case. Commenters have doubted the facts presented in the trial, criticized the testimonies and given their own thoughts on what “actually” happened. These statements run on the assumption that what has been covered in the media is the entirety of what the defense and prosecution teams know.
I believe part of social media’s (sometimes unhealthy) interest in this case has to do with the growing public interest in true crime. Boston University media researcher Kathryn D. Coduto performed a study asking adults about their online engagement with crime stories, finding that “true crime followers often get sucked into cases, compulsively using and posting on social media, developing one-sided relationships with the characters, and experiencing negative feelings surrounding the stories they follow.” The Lindsay Clancy trial is more than just a podcast on a years-old case; it is an evolving, current case with no clear end, which gives viewers the opportunity to feel like they can help solve it.
The defense’s argument of this trial has never been whether or not Clancy killed her three children; it is about whether or not she is criminally responsible for their deaths, or whether she was mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of her crime. Nevertheless, social media has taken this case in a different direction. On each Instagram post I’ve seen regarding the trial, the comments (and sometimes the posts themselves) discuss the possibility that Patrick Clancy, Lindsay’s husband at the time of the killings, is actually the one responsible for the deaths of their children.
Online sleuths have taken the case into their own hands, pointing out inconsistencies in facts and testimonies, suggesting this case is not focused on the truly responsible parties. Namely, they point out the fact that Lindsay was physically unable to speak to paramedics who arrived on the scene, yet was allegedly able to tell Patrick the location of the children when he came back home and found her. Additionally, people have questioned the timeline of Patrick’s absence from the house and the fact that he is the only immediate witness to the aftermath of the crimes.
Nevertheless, there is some good that has come from the case’s widespread coverage. More mothers online are speaking on their experiences with postpartum depression and psychosis, bringing attention to the lack of adequate mental health resources for postpartum care and the failings of the U.S. healthcare system.
I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with engaging with true crime media — in fact, I believe true crime media helps viewers be more aware of their environments by providing vulnerable groups information about potential warning signs of danger. However, social media has taken the coverage of this case as an opportunity to undermine legal and forensic experts. Lindsay Clancy has a team of experts supporting her through the trial, from a strong defense team to expert testimonies testifying to how Clancy’s mental health could have impaired her judgement and actions.
The Lindsay Clancy trial is a perfect example of how people develop parasocial feelings and relationships with people and cases they see online. Should the prosecution decide to retry the case, online obsession with theories about the case will only become more intense, possibly affecting innocent parties.
Katherine Winton is a member of the Class of 2029 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a staff writer for the Arts & Culture department and can be reached at kwinton@cornellsun.com.
