If you only watch or listen to one thing from the ongoing Lindsay Clancy trial, which has now enraptured the entire internet, I strongly recommend making it this:
Thank you, Tracey, for proving once more that you are a decent fellow who can use his brain. Had never heard about this case, what with not living in your country and not almost ever listening to what was once called "chronicle" news. Do not have any wish to look into it further, your description and the Resnik video are enough.
The reactions of a certain subset of the population (as shown by a certain subset of your readers too, here below, alas) are appalling.
I am so sorry for this world and this age, where very simple obvious things, the things that hold our civilisation together, need to be repeated so often and still fall on the deaf ears of screaming mobs.
And incidentally, it has gotten to the point where, every time I meet a new person born after 1980 (not that there are none of the previous classes, but they tend to be less online), a new person of either sex or the alternates also, I find myself wondering, "Will you reveal yourself as one of "those"?
To be honest, it is a little like living in The Body Snatchers universe.
Good work, Michael. I haven't been following the case, but I do have some personal acquaintance with psychosis and how it can affect those we love (a woman, actually, which seems relevant here) - it's a terrible, heartbreaking, diabolical illness. The often internally-coherent nature of the delusions is one of the cruelest symptoms because, for the sufferer, what feels like sanity and reason is the very thing that prevents them being able to relate to those others who, not psychotic, still care about them and want better things for them. And so they often isolate, secretive in their suffering and delusional state. I've seen it and felt its impact. I have a lot of sympathy for this poor woman, her husband, and her loved ones. It's such an extreme case, so unimaginably sad and awful.
Even if I hadn't had any personal experience with clinical psychosis and delusion, one would hope I could still see my way to a kinder and gentler position on something that I hope none of us ever have to deal with.
Making this terrible tragedy into a weapon in a dumb "gender war" is beyond heartless.
Damm Tracey! Adroit authorship, granular forensic analysis, compassion, scepticism towards the state, it's all here.
I haven't finished yet, gotta get pup to the vet. One early thought; agree prosection expenses should/could have been diverted to prevention/ early intervention. This is the sort of critical lens we need on criminal justice, urgently.
I'll be back later with more thoughts. Take care, it hurts my heart reading about these children's suffering AND the prosectorial spatter fest, that eviscerates traumatised women (business as usual- just look at the rates of mental disorder, victimisation, poverty in the female carceral complex and compare it with community support available to them, gendered expections). This is about more than LC. AND I wholeheartedly support your Epstein related stuff. People struggle with the idea that two things can be true at once.
(1) I genuinely appreciate the inoculation Michael’s post here has provided against me getting sucked into some stupid Culture War perception of this case, about which I knew nothing before it blew up everywhere in the last few days. Having said that:
(2) With respect to this: “Claiming that anyone who points out the mountain of mitigating evidence as to Lindsay’s criminal culpability must be Defending/Excusing child homicide is just the cheap deflection of a scoundrel ….” This is a semantic point, but what her side is arguing in court is by definition a “defense,” and is also under the law an “excuse” (though I don’t specifically know that the Massachusetts law uses the word) for what would normally be a criminal act (i.e., they’re not arguing justification nor, as far as I can tell, mitigation; “lack of criminal responsibility” is in fact a legal excuse). Michael seems to have identified some bad eggs on the social media, but he’s not on the surest ground by decrying them for saying something accurate in the context of the trial.
(3) I bridle a bit at this: “Why exactly do you figure she would’ve killed her three children, if not out of a genuinely ‘psychotic’ belief that she too was actually saving them? What else could she have possibly gotten from this? Fame? Fortune? Freedom? Please.” I’m not too comfortable with the inexplicable evil of a crime being treated *per se* as evidence of lack of criminal responsibility. The same rhetorical questions could be posed about someone who shoves a stranger in front of a subway train. After all, what benefit do they derive? It could be replied that mental illness is likely playing a prominent role there as well. And I would agree, and indeed it could even be sufficient to preclude the state of mind required to find the shover criminally liable. But there, as here, let’s put the accused to the trouble of establishing that fact through psychiatric testimony (or, if no trial, at least a report). Having the heinousness of the offense itself serve as evidence against prosecuting it as a crime is a self-licking ice cream cone that is best left in the freezer.
After reading this I can only assume I've fallen victim to a dramatised exaggerated click bait title.
Everything I've heard online is that she had post-partum psychosis and killed her 3 kids. Then a whole bunch of women are posting that they feel the same. How am I not to understand that these women are admitting they want to kill their babies? What empathy am I supposedly missing? She was psychotic and killed her 3 kids. Its tragic and she is in no way excused because what she did has a medical diagnosis. She killed her 3 kids!
How is this all men's fault? Is your only contribution to this mess yelling at all men for what a couple idiots are screaming online?
Men are prima facie protectors, Michael. It's an evolutionary DNA precursor, so try to understand the lymbic brain reaction to three dead kids. But your points are well taken, that is, the biologically objective attempt to discern this woman's spiral into madness without animus or overarching rational perspective. It's a horror show, stem to stern, and there is no excuse for men to exploit it or women to celebrate it, which they are, dressing in pink and standing in solidarity with an unspeakably brutal crime, no matter the circumstances.
There is no bio-psychological excuse for mass child murder. Nothing prevented the woman from calling for help. Postpartem depression is a euphemism for "I hate parenting," and another example of the medicalization of everyday life.
As you alluded to it’s just a pathetic attempt at a culture war. Because Trump has failed them on every conceivable way, all they have left is to ‘own the libs’ on social media. Liberal women rally in support of X, then we must be for Y. Rinse and repeat
Thanks Michael. I’m only acquainted with the barest outline of this story, so I’m pleased it was your views that found their way into my world before any others.
An excellent essay - I’m going back for a second read, as always with your work.
Thank you, Tracey, for proving once more that you are a decent fellow who can use his brain. Had never heard about this case, what with not living in your country and not almost ever listening to what was once called "chronicle" news. Do not have any wish to look into it further, your description and the Resnik video are enough.
The reactions of a certain subset of the population (as shown by a certain subset of your readers too, here below, alas) are appalling.
I am so sorry for this world and this age, where very simple obvious things, the things that hold our civilisation together, need to be repeated so often and still fall on the deaf ears of screaming mobs.
Thank you again for doing this work.
And incidentally, it has gotten to the point where, every time I meet a new person born after 1980 (not that there are none of the previous classes, but they tend to be less online), a new person of either sex or the alternates also, I find myself wondering, "Will you reveal yourself as one of "those"?
To be honest, it is a little like living in The Body Snatchers universe.
Good work, Michael. I haven't been following the case, but I do have some personal acquaintance with psychosis and how it can affect those we love (a woman, actually, which seems relevant here) - it's a terrible, heartbreaking, diabolical illness. The often internally-coherent nature of the delusions is one of the cruelest symptoms because, for the sufferer, what feels like sanity and reason is the very thing that prevents them being able to relate to those others who, not psychotic, still care about them and want better things for them. And so they often isolate, secretive in their suffering and delusional state. I've seen it and felt its impact. I have a lot of sympathy for this poor woman, her husband, and her loved ones. It's such an extreme case, so unimaginably sad and awful.
Even if I hadn't had any personal experience with clinical psychosis and delusion, one would hope I could still see my way to a kinder and gentler position on something that I hope none of us ever have to deal with.
Making this terrible tragedy into a weapon in a dumb "gender war" is beyond heartless.
Damm Tracey! Adroit authorship, granular forensic analysis, compassion, scepticism towards the state, it's all here.
I haven't finished yet, gotta get pup to the vet. One early thought; agree prosection expenses should/could have been diverted to prevention/ early intervention. This is the sort of critical lens we need on criminal justice, urgently.
I'll be back later with more thoughts. Take care, it hurts my heart reading about these children's suffering AND the prosectorial spatter fest, that eviscerates traumatised women (business as usual- just look at the rates of mental disorder, victimisation, poverty in the female carceral complex and compare it with community support available to them, gendered expections). This is about more than LC. AND I wholeheartedly support your Epstein related stuff. People struggle with the idea that two things can be true at once.
You don't believe evil exists.
(1) I genuinely appreciate the inoculation Michael’s post here has provided against me getting sucked into some stupid Culture War perception of this case, about which I knew nothing before it blew up everywhere in the last few days. Having said that:
(2) With respect to this: “Claiming that anyone who points out the mountain of mitigating evidence as to Lindsay’s criminal culpability must be Defending/Excusing child homicide is just the cheap deflection of a scoundrel ….” This is a semantic point, but what her side is arguing in court is by definition a “defense,” and is also under the law an “excuse” (though I don’t specifically know that the Massachusetts law uses the word) for what would normally be a criminal act (i.e., they’re not arguing justification nor, as far as I can tell, mitigation; “lack of criminal responsibility” is in fact a legal excuse). Michael seems to have identified some bad eggs on the social media, but he’s not on the surest ground by decrying them for saying something accurate in the context of the trial.
(3) I bridle a bit at this: “Why exactly do you figure she would’ve killed her three children, if not out of a genuinely ‘psychotic’ belief that she too was actually saving them? What else could she have possibly gotten from this? Fame? Fortune? Freedom? Please.” I’m not too comfortable with the inexplicable evil of a crime being treated *per se* as evidence of lack of criminal responsibility. The same rhetorical questions could be posed about someone who shoves a stranger in front of a subway train. After all, what benefit do they derive? It could be replied that mental illness is likely playing a prominent role there as well. And I would agree, and indeed it could even be sufficient to preclude the state of mind required to find the shover criminally liable. But there, as here, let’s put the accused to the trouble of establishing that fact through psychiatric testimony (or, if no trial, at least a report). Having the heinousness of the offense itself serve as evidence against prosecuting it as a crime is a self-licking ice cream cone that is best left in the freezer.
After reading this I can only assume I've fallen victim to a dramatised exaggerated click bait title.
Everything I've heard online is that she had post-partum psychosis and killed her 3 kids. Then a whole bunch of women are posting that they feel the same. How am I not to understand that these women are admitting they want to kill their babies? What empathy am I supposedly missing? She was psychotic and killed her 3 kids. Its tragic and she is in no way excused because what she did has a medical diagnosis. She killed her 3 kids!
How is this all men's fault? Is your only contribution to this mess yelling at all men for what a couple idiots are screaming online?
Men are prima facie protectors, Michael. It's an evolutionary DNA precursor, so try to understand the lymbic brain reaction to three dead kids. But your points are well taken, that is, the biologically objective attempt to discern this woman's spiral into madness without animus or overarching rational perspective. It's a horror show, stem to stern, and there is no excuse for men to exploit it or women to celebrate it, which they are, dressing in pink and standing in solidarity with an unspeakably brutal crime, no matter the circumstances.
There is no bio-psychological excuse for mass child murder. Nothing prevented the woman from calling for help. Postpartem depression is a euphemism for "I hate parenting," and another example of the medicalization of everyday life.
As you alluded to it’s just a pathetic attempt at a culture war. Because Trump has failed them on every conceivable way, all they have left is to ‘own the libs’ on social media. Liberal women rally in support of X, then we must be for Y. Rinse and repeat
Thanks Michael. I’m only acquainted with the barest outline of this story, so I’m pleased it was your views that found their way into my world before any others.
An excellent essay - I’m going back for a second read, as always with your work.
Greetings from Australia.