The prosecutors of Lindsay Clancy argued in an October 26, 2023 arraignment hearing that she “did not feel love or connection” toward one or more of her children — aged five, three, and eight months.
"I've got this great substack concept: now that liberalism is uncool, I'll stop mindlessly parroting what Rachel Maddow says, and instead will begin regurgitating the thoughts of Megyn Kelly and others in the dunce right wing podcast circuit.
I'll call it 'free thinking through the blah blah blah something pretentious.'"
No, Claremont Inst's American Mind Podcast also came out very strongly on behalf of the prosecutors. They were kind of disputing the possibility of postpartum psychosis. Which is kind of funny because there is centuries of forensic evidence, plus great works of art like Goethe's Faust written on the topic. Particularly, as they say they value classical education, lol. Leo Strauss would never have sunk that low.
That argument is weak. Centuries of infanticide cases are not “centuries of evidence” validating a specific psychiatric diagnosis. Historical accounts generally cannot establish modern diagnostic criteria, exclude alternative explanations, or determine an offender’s mental state retrospectively. And Faust is a work of literature, not clinical evidence.
Postpartum psychosis can be a genuine psychiatric condition without every maternal infanticide proving its existence—or proving that it caused Lindsay Clancy’s actions. The relevant question is whether the medical and factual evidence establishes that diagnosis and its causal significance in this particular case.
We have centuries of infanticide cases where the law has over centuries cautiously responded to this. Forensic psychiatry only arrived at the scene in full grown mode in late 19th century. However provisions for criminal insanity have been already known from Biblical and Talmudic times.
You are conflating three entirely different propositions:
Infanticide has occurred for centuries.
Legal systems have long recognized some form of insanity.
Lindsay Clancy suffered postpartum psychosis that legally incapacitated her when she killed her children.
The first two provide no evidence for the third. Biblical and Talmudic insanity provisions show that ancient societies recognized impaired responsibility; they do not validate a modern psychiatric diagnosis, establish its diagnostic criteria, or prove that it applied to this defendant.
Indeed, conceding that forensic psychiatry did not mature until the late nineteenth century undermines the claim of “centuries of forensic evidence.” What you have is centuries of cases interpreted through changing moral, legal, and medical frameworks—not centuries of reliable clinical diagnoses of postpartum psychosis. The Clancy defense must stand on the contemporaneous evidence in Clancy’s case, not on ancient law or the mere historical existence of maternal infanticide.
NOT TRUE. NO, WHERE in the bible is insanity acknowledged. The bible says people that disobey God can be driven to madness, but that is a state of delusion like most people now not clinical insanity. Psychiatry & psychology are pseudo sciences, and the bible calls them sorcery. PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN) is sorcery, and it is witchcraft to use it as an excuse for demon possessed w0e-MEN. To be truthful there is no such thing as clinical insanity. It is demon possession. This is why excuses are made for fe-MALE child murderers and not MALE ones. Because w0e-MEN are more prone to demonic possession due to their smaller brains and lack of agency. Carlos the black guy who killed the Ukrainian girl on the train is deemed to unfit to stand trial. I take that to mean he is even more possessed than Clancy which would be an exception.
Clancy was NOT diagnosed with PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN)
SEVEN different doctors confirmed she did NOT express PPD just good old-fashioned depression. The PPD scam was introduced AFTER the murders. "Hearing voices for 18 minutes during the murders but not before or after is inconsistent with PPD as several doctors have said. The 'MALE voice' is straight out of the feminist playbook as her asinine claim "I feel overwhelmed by having to take care of everybody" which is a PROVEN LIE, as she had THREE babysitters, A LIVE IN NANNY, A STAY AT HOME HUSBAND who ran errands for her, 12 doctors and medications she WAS NOT taking. Clancy is typical overly entitled privileged manipulative feminist NOT a victim. Demonic possession is real and the fact that w0e-MEN are more prone to demonic possession due to their lack of agency is overwhelming proof of the bible. Add to this evidence is the FACT that MOST w0e-MEN child murderers are high testosterone masculine looking w0e-MEN with WEAK husbands, further proves the biblical claim that w0e-MEN need to be under their husband's authority to keep them from being evil.
NO, this is not true. NO where in the bible in insanity acknowledged. The bible says people that disobey God can be driven to madness but that is not insanity. I would argue that the psychology field is the same thing as sorcery. Same for PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN) It is witchcraft to invent excuses for demon possessed w0e-MEN.
Agreed! The whole situation is truly tragic, but as you said, these two women seemed obsessed with punishing her publicly rather than doing their actual jobs. Their antics disgusted me, as well.
Hopefully Clancy gets even MORE punished and goes to PRISON for 3 life sentences and gets a cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
I guess that's an opinion. Have you actually followed the trial & heard the evidence? What she did was unspeakable and wrong, but mental illness is a terrible thing, & sometimes people can do bad things in their mental anguish which is why our justice system has the insanity plea as an available option. Was that the case here? I don't know. But neither do you. The jury gets to decide that, not us.
btw, I did watch the trial, and it is even more obvious that she is a diabolical LIAR, who is also a feminist, and has exposed her STORY as all LIES. FACT: She said in her diary: "I feel overwhelmed by having to take care of everybody" RED FLAG> FACT: She was a privileged and coddled over accommodated entitled WHORE. She had THREE babysitters, a live-in nanny and a stay-at-home husband who ran errands for her. She had 12 doctors and also did NOT take the meds she claims she was on. She also LIED about hearing a MALE voice during the 18 minutes she was strangling those babies but not since or before. The shrink even said that is not how psychosis happens. Fact is everything she was told to say is right out of the FEMINIST playbook. Also, the psychologist said she was NEVER diagnosed with PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN)
ANYONE who did watch the trial knows SHE IS GUILTY OF PRE MEDITATED MURDER
I guess that's an opinion. Did you know that Carlos the black guy who killed the Ukrainian w0e-MEN on the train was diagnosed with psychosis and heard voices? Would you be ok considering the insanity defense for HIM??????
Well, not quite, he was deemed too incompetent to stand trial. Contrast that with Clancy who is cognizant enough to understand the charges talk with her lawyers and even spew out feminist bullshit like "I am concerned about w0e-MEN'S rights" I think the two cases show she is a Calculating liar. Thanks anyway.
Sir, no one is saying that she isn't guilty of killing those poor babies. She is. And it's awful. The question is whether she was in control of herself or not. I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't. The problem is, neither do you, even though you seem very convinced of your righteousness. Perhaps we should allow the jury to do its job here on earth & let God take it from there. This isn't our battle to fight.
Been following your coverage and didn't think the prosecutors' behavior could further shock the conscience. But yes, their closing arguments are the culmination of and even exceed all the previous vile excrescences. It's interesting to consider how intent these people were on convincing a jury someone else was evil.
Barry, with all due respect, I think Michael is simply using this story as a prop to be contrary (his specialty) and faux-virtuous. More than 1 thing can be correct: the people of Mass. can and should seek justice, Clancy can be a monster, the prosecution can be less than 100% perfect in retrospect, and Michael can be a contrarian faux-virtue-signaler.
Hi PL, agreed that many things can be true at once, including a less-than-perfect prosecution team (after all, no one is perfect, so this one will always be true, though in addition under the circumstances I think "less than perfect" is a remarkably charitable way to describe the behavior in question).
I can't see into Michael's heart any more than I can see into anyone else's, so I can't disprove a theory about his motivations. But nor do I see any evidence for your theory. I've followed his work for years and the through-line I see is distrust of power and skepticism about prevailing narratives—both essential traits in journalists and healthy (and sadly rare) in any human. Such a through-line as I see it has nothing to do with contrarianism."
As for virtue-signaling, isn't speaking out against a prevailing narrative really the opposite? I don't know of anyone who's been more vocal about debunking various Epstein-related and human-trafficking shibboleths, positions that have earned Michael scorn, slander, death threats and more, none of which would seem to be among the presumed rewards of virtue signaling.
When someone holds a view strongly at odds with our own, it's natural to suspect that person of bad motives. So it's not surprising that many people who substantively disagree with Michael (see for example Zaid Jilani) instinctively explain the disagreement by questioning Michael's motives. And while again I can't definitively opine on the workings of anyone else's heart (I doubt I could definitively opine on the workings of my own), the evidence Michael consistently marshals in support of his positions, the heterodox nature of those positions, and the vitriol those positions often elicit, suggest to me that he's more interested in coming to his own conclusions than he is in contrarianism or the presumed rewards of virtue signaling.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Barry. Will consider your points.
To be clear, I have mixed feelings about Michael's work. Yes, I said feelings, because it mirrors your point about not seeing into Michael's heart. Readers also have heartfelt reactions, not just to one story, but to a body of work. In the case of Michael, it includes listening and watching him on podcasts and videos.
And to be very clear, I am a paid supporter of Michael because I admire and want to support the work he has been doing on the Epstein insanity.
Back at you PL, and my God did we just have a respectful and productive exchange on the Internet?! :)
It seems one big thing we agree on is that we don't have to agree with everything to respect and appreciate a person's overall body of work. In fact, it's long struck me as strange how people almost seem to search for one nit they don't agree with or otherwise don't like as a justification for dismissing the whole.
Anyway, salute for not falling into that trap with Michael, who in my experience is a vital corrective to some of the most feverish panics of our times.
The prosecutors have done nothing wrong, except not grilling the monster enough. Hopefully Clancy gets a prison cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
I'll never understand why people feel the urge to comment on articles they haven't read or else that they failed to comprehend, or why they make arguments already refuted in the article they're purporting to opine on, as though the refutation simply didn't exist. Penultimate paragraph:
Indeed, the US Supreme Court has defined the “job” of a prosecutor as follows:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
The ladies? from TikTok (and a plague of mange on all the people who continue to use that abysmal platform) are at best activism-obsessed individuals who hijack a tragedy to raise outrage in support of their sexist conspiracy theory about the systemic oppression of women, at worst obscene performers who would wallow in any muck in order to get clicks.
The gentlemen? from Xtwitter (and a plague of lice on all the people who continue to use that abysmal platform) are at best activism-obsessed individuals who hijack a tragedy to raise outrage in support of their sexist conspiracy theory about the systemic preference given to women, at worst obscene performers who would wallow in any muck in order to get clicks.
What remains here (and yes, I looked into it after all, since even the British press now talks about it -- but Tracey's articles still are the most clear and to the point) is a tragedy of death by killing compounded by a tragedy of mishandling of justice.
It has nothing to do with the sex of the defender, one way or the other. It has everything to do with people with a twisted and damaging idea of what the adversarial system of trials is supposed to be about. By their behaviour, these two attorneys and their boss fail the test not just of decency, but of what should be admissible in prosecution.
I am aware that defence lawyers do the same often. The first are driven by money, and the second by the notoriety that will get them hired and elected to ever better posts if they produce more convictions.
It is a sorry state of things. I hope the jury can see simple sense. As for punishing the zealots... I doubt that in this general climate a censure based on reasonability and humanity can surface. These are times where zealotry pays.
You are delusional. You are a radical skeptic and solipsist. GOOGLE IT: Research indicates that MEN receive significantly longer prison sentences than w0e-MEN for the 'same' offense. A prominent university of Michigan law school study conducted by Professor Sonja Star found that when controlling for arrest offenses, criminal HIS-story, and other pre charge variables, MEN receive sentences that are OVER 60% LONGER on average than w0e-MEN. (University of Michigan)
The data highlights several key aspects of this gender disparity in the criminal justice system:
.......................................................Key findings of the disparity: SENTENCING LENGTH:
Across federal criminal cases, the sentencing length gap averages roughly 60% to 63% in favor of w0e-MEN. Avoiding incarceration: fe-MALE arrestees are TWICE as likely to avoid incarceration entirely if they are convicted of a crime.
......................................................Discretionary decisions: The majority of this gap is driven by early-stage prosecutorial discretion such as decisions related to charging, plea bargaining, and fact finding rather than the final judge's decision at the sentencing hearing.
Yeah I think it's pretty obvious she wasn't nearly as committed to ending her own life as she was to ending her children's. Homicide by strangulation is a gruesome, intimate method of killing, and it is not quick, especially as her two oldest children were of an age where they would be able to put up some resistance.
Yea the suicide attempt was part of her alibi. People have jumped out of burning buildings from higher distances than 14 feet and didn't get paralyzed.
Last year this same DA's Office twice tried a woman, Karen Read, for murder, the second time having to hire outside counsel that screwed his case so badly, that when he lost, investigations into Police misconduct in the initial investigation caused a lead investigator to be fired and a Plaintiff's claim brought by the putative defendant against the DAs Office is likely to lead to million dollar awards for Read. The laughs just keep on coming
Karen Read is GUILTY. Only morons don't see her guilt. She got a pussy pass. The prosecutor was in cahoots with her which is why she was overcharged to purposely get her off. Karen Read is a witch and she is guilty. And I am no fan of police. Police are just like w0e-MEN. They're running Amok because of qualified immunity which is essentially what w0e-MEN get
All the weak simps on this page. The prosecutors have done nothing wrong except not grilling the monster hard enough. Hopefully Clancy gets sent to PRISON and gets a cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
Brother Esposito- you’re all heart and no mind. Cruz’s crew of hapless female Prosecuters(?you understand Cruz needed 2 women to emphasize their caring nature for dead children- another prosecutorial strategic error) got their butts handed to them 11-1. THEY LOST TYE CASE ON ITS MERITS-because the law AND the science came up short . Reddington was brilliant. And I say that as a40 year veteran trial lawyer in Mass.
True. Sorry about the Error-BUT/ the same crappy Prosecution. Now that Morrisey appears to sitting out any further runs in Norfolk, expect the same for Cruz. In both counties another political hack can get their moment at the public trough.
Just what Tracey noticed two articles ago. I recall back in the day, before the Iraq war, watching video footage (at the time not AI fake-able) of Saddam Hussein's militias proving their masculinity by killing dogs with their bare hands. Some 15 years prior (because I am old) I watched footage of the Bosnian war, in which similarly disposed soldiers proved themselves in similar ways, only towards people.
A lot of men (and a lot of women) foster unreasonable anger and resentment, which is more than happy to find a focus, any focus, but better if something that has irritated them before or that they find lowly. Pogroms (against Jews, against others of similar status) have always happened for the same reason across history.
These froth at the mouth on the internet, expressing quite well how good they are at shutting down their rational brains if they possess one. Unfortunately the global village means that the village idiots are out and about constantly and make a lot of noise. Thereby the 4chan flavour. The spectacle of people spewing base irrational abuse is still spectacle. It is a sad state of things, which I have seen fixed only in places like The Motte. It takes community moderation to weed out the apes and the witches, and the comments sections to articles are hardly a community. Besides, people pay a subscription to be able to comment on Substack... so I guess that the writers must endure them unless borderline criminal.
Quite the contrary, it's incredibly fun to rile up people like you.
Without the channer types, as misguided as they might be in their anime enjoying, we would have societies filled with boredom and boredom people, like you. Drudgery, work for the corporation, milquetoast non-opinions that drive people mad.
Really none of this matters as much as the fact that her entire defense is that she started hearing voices for the first and only time during the window of opportunity she deliberately created to kill her kids. Her inconsistent account of what it said or when she heard it underscore what bullshit it is. It would be farcical to allow an insanity defense for anyone with a history of any mental illness who claims to have been experiencing their first and only psychotic delusion during the crime. It’s unfortunate that the prosecutors have wasted time on emotional appeals and trying to contest things that aren’t in dispute and don’t matter.
I watched the arraignment link and it sounds like a standard laying out of the case as the prosecution saw after the Grand Jury indictment, with rebuttal and pleas for interim remediation from the defense. Not the rantings of a wild-eyed prosecutor on some hellish vendetta. At no time did she explicitly state that Clancy didn't try to kill herself. The initial medical examination said her cuts were superficial. She stated there was evidence of blood on the window frame and trailing down the outside the house indicating that Clancy didn't throw herself out of the window. It's also strange that she would take just two pills before she went out the window. Why not take the whole bottle, or all the bottles, just to be sure? With such a gruesome crime that Clancy committed, strangling her kids to death with such force and intent, for the prosecution to roll over and concede from the get go could be seen as being soft on murder. Politically, Plymouth County leans more conservative than the rest of Massachusetts. Maybe the DA miscalculated the capacity for empathy of his constituency. Time will tell.
Excellent case for having these truly incompetent attorneys disbarred. Their behavior is astounding and has probably maligned the jury’s ability to review the facts to come to some determination of guilt as well as in what degree and what the sentence should be.
A Plea deal would probably have been for the best, but the lady and her attorneys thought they could win a ‘by reason of insanity’, which would have been a state mental facility instead of a penitentiary? Neither side sounds like they were too bright, but very happy with all the publicity. Pulpy true crime. I am sure NetFlix will have the documentary in the can by 2028.
This has to be satire, right? Or else one of the crazy ladies from TikTok has kidnapped Michael Tracey.
Can you not argue on substance? Please tell us what specific issues you have with what Michael has written.
No, it's sincere.
Edit: I agree with Micheal on the Epstein thing and the $MeToo thing. He is spot on about those matters. Here we can disagree on this Clancy thing.
Tracy is not Jewish, but he does a good job making people think he is. I agree with him about the Epstein thing and the $MeToo thing., it is bullshit
"I've got this great substack concept: now that liberalism is uncool, I'll stop mindlessly parroting what Rachel Maddow says, and instead will begin regurgitating the thoughts of Megyn Kelly and others in the dunce right wing podcast circuit.
I'll call it 'free thinking through the blah blah blah something pretentious.'"
Please explain in what way you think this is satire.
No, he is just being contrary and faux-virtuous.
Sasha, a rare time I'm with you all the way.
2 Crrazzzy gals from the Mass.Vatican D.A.'s office, & 1 called Sasha Stone !
No, Claremont Inst's American Mind Podcast also came out very strongly on behalf of the prosecutors. They were kind of disputing the possibility of postpartum psychosis. Which is kind of funny because there is centuries of forensic evidence, plus great works of art like Goethe's Faust written on the topic. Particularly, as they say they value classical education, lol. Leo Strauss would never have sunk that low.
https://americanmind.org/audio/the-great-american-trade-war-continues-the-american-mind-podcast/
That argument is weak. Centuries of infanticide cases are not “centuries of evidence” validating a specific psychiatric diagnosis. Historical accounts generally cannot establish modern diagnostic criteria, exclude alternative explanations, or determine an offender’s mental state retrospectively. And Faust is a work of literature, not clinical evidence.
Postpartum psychosis can be a genuine psychiatric condition without every maternal infanticide proving its existence—or proving that it caused Lindsay Clancy’s actions. The relevant question is whether the medical and factual evidence establishes that diagnosis and its causal significance in this particular case.
We have centuries of infanticide cases where the law has over centuries cautiously responded to this. Forensic psychiatry only arrived at the scene in full grown mode in late 19th century. However provisions for criminal insanity have been already known from Biblical and Talmudic times.
You are conflating three entirely different propositions:
Infanticide has occurred for centuries.
Legal systems have long recognized some form of insanity.
Lindsay Clancy suffered postpartum psychosis that legally incapacitated her when she killed her children.
The first two provide no evidence for the third. Biblical and Talmudic insanity provisions show that ancient societies recognized impaired responsibility; they do not validate a modern psychiatric diagnosis, establish its diagnostic criteria, or prove that it applied to this defendant.
Indeed, conceding that forensic psychiatry did not mature until the late nineteenth century undermines the claim of “centuries of forensic evidence.” What you have is centuries of cases interpreted through changing moral, legal, and medical frameworks—not centuries of reliable clinical diagnoses of postpartum psychosis. The Clancy defense must stand on the contemporaneous evidence in Clancy’s case, not on ancient law or the mere historical existence of maternal infanticide.
NOT TRUE. NO, WHERE in the bible is insanity acknowledged. The bible says people that disobey God can be driven to madness, but that is a state of delusion like most people now not clinical insanity. Psychiatry & psychology are pseudo sciences, and the bible calls them sorcery. PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN) is sorcery, and it is witchcraft to use it as an excuse for demon possessed w0e-MEN. To be truthful there is no such thing as clinical insanity. It is demon possession. This is why excuses are made for fe-MALE child murderers and not MALE ones. Because w0e-MEN are more prone to demonic possession due to their smaller brains and lack of agency. Carlos the black guy who killed the Ukrainian girl on the train is deemed to unfit to stand trial. I take that to mean he is even more possessed than Clancy which would be an exception.
Clancy was NOT diagnosed with PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN)
SEVEN different doctors confirmed she did NOT express PPD just good old-fashioned depression. The PPD scam was introduced AFTER the murders. "Hearing voices for 18 minutes during the murders but not before or after is inconsistent with PPD as several doctors have said. The 'MALE voice' is straight out of the feminist playbook as her asinine claim "I feel overwhelmed by having to take care of everybody" which is a PROVEN LIE, as she had THREE babysitters, A LIVE IN NANNY, A STAY AT HOME HUSBAND who ran errands for her, 12 doctors and medications she WAS NOT taking. Clancy is typical overly entitled privileged manipulative feminist NOT a victim. Demonic possession is real and the fact that w0e-MEN are more prone to demonic possession due to their lack of agency is overwhelming proof of the bible. Add to this evidence is the FACT that MOST w0e-MEN child murderers are high testosterone masculine looking w0e-MEN with WEAK husbands, further proves the biblical claim that w0e-MEN need to be under their husband's authority to keep them from being evil.
"WEAK MEN CREATE UNRULY w0e-MEN" Full stop.
NO, this is not true. NO where in the bible in insanity acknowledged. The bible says people that disobey God can be driven to madness but that is not insanity. I would argue that the psychology field is the same thing as sorcery. Same for PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN) It is witchcraft to invent excuses for demon possessed w0e-MEN.
Agreed! The whole situation is truly tragic, but as you said, these two women seemed obsessed with punishing her publicly rather than doing their actual jobs. Their antics disgusted me, as well.
Hopefully Clancy gets even MORE punished and goes to PRISON for 3 life sentences and gets a cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
I guess that's an opinion. Have you actually followed the trial & heard the evidence? What she did was unspeakable and wrong, but mental illness is a terrible thing, & sometimes people can do bad things in their mental anguish which is why our justice system has the insanity plea as an available option. Was that the case here? I don't know. But neither do you. The jury gets to decide that, not us.
btw, I did watch the trial, and it is even more obvious that she is a diabolical LIAR, who is also a feminist, and has exposed her STORY as all LIES. FACT: She said in her diary: "I feel overwhelmed by having to take care of everybody" RED FLAG> FACT: She was a privileged and coddled over accommodated entitled WHORE. She had THREE babysitters, a live-in nanny and a stay-at-home husband who ran errands for her. She had 12 doctors and also did NOT take the meds she claims she was on. She also LIED about hearing a MALE voice during the 18 minutes she was strangling those babies but not since or before. The shrink even said that is not how psychosis happens. Fact is everything she was told to say is right out of the FEMINIST playbook. Also, the psychologist said she was NEVER diagnosed with PPD (Post pardon the w0e-MAN)
ANYONE who did watch the trial knows SHE IS GUILTY OF PRE MEDITATED MURDER
OK. We can disagree. Have a great night!
I suspect you'll hide from me, just as you're hiding your face.
Lol
I guess that's an opinion. Did you know that Carlos the black guy who killed the Ukrainian w0e-MEN on the train was diagnosed with psychosis and heard voices? Would you be ok considering the insanity defense for HIM??????
He actually was found not guilty by reason of insanity. So.
Well, not quite, he was deemed too incompetent to stand trial. Contrast that with Clancy who is cognizant enough to understand the charges talk with her lawyers and even spew out feminist bullshit like "I am concerned about w0e-MEN'S rights" I think the two cases show she is a Calculating liar. Thanks anyway.
Sir, no one is saying that she isn't guilty of killing those poor babies. She is. And it's awful. The question is whether she was in control of herself or not. I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't. The problem is, neither do you, even though you seem very convinced of your righteousness. Perhaps we should allow the jury to do its job here on earth & let God take it from there. This isn't our battle to fight.
I do wish you a nice day.
Been following your coverage and didn't think the prosecutors' behavior could further shock the conscience. But yes, their closing arguments are the culmination of and even exceed all the previous vile excrescences. It's interesting to consider how intent these people were on convincing a jury someone else was evil.
Barry, with all due respect, I think Michael is simply using this story as a prop to be contrary (his specialty) and faux-virtuous. More than 1 thing can be correct: the people of Mass. can and should seek justice, Clancy can be a monster, the prosecution can be less than 100% perfect in retrospect, and Michael can be a contrarian faux-virtue-signaler.
Hi PL, agreed that many things can be true at once, including a less-than-perfect prosecution team (after all, no one is perfect, so this one will always be true, though in addition under the circumstances I think "less than perfect" is a remarkably charitable way to describe the behavior in question).
I can't see into Michael's heart any more than I can see into anyone else's, so I can't disprove a theory about his motivations. But nor do I see any evidence for your theory. I've followed his work for years and the through-line I see is distrust of power and skepticism about prevailing narratives—both essential traits in journalists and healthy (and sadly rare) in any human. Such a through-line as I see it has nothing to do with contrarianism."
As for virtue-signaling, isn't speaking out against a prevailing narrative really the opposite? I don't know of anyone who's been more vocal about debunking various Epstein-related and human-trafficking shibboleths, positions that have earned Michael scorn, slander, death threats and more, none of which would seem to be among the presumed rewards of virtue signaling.
When someone holds a view strongly at odds with our own, it's natural to suspect that person of bad motives. So it's not surprising that many people who substantively disagree with Michael (see for example Zaid Jilani) instinctively explain the disagreement by questioning Michael's motives. And while again I can't definitively opine on the workings of anyone else's heart (I doubt I could definitively opine on the workings of my own), the evidence Michael consistently marshals in support of his positions, the heterodox nature of those positions, and the vitriol those positions often elicit, suggest to me that he's more interested in coming to his own conclusions than he is in contrarianism or the presumed rewards of virtue signaling.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Barry. Will consider your points.
To be clear, I have mixed feelings about Michael's work. Yes, I said feelings, because it mirrors your point about not seeing into Michael's heart. Readers also have heartfelt reactions, not just to one story, but to a body of work. In the case of Michael, it includes listening and watching him on podcasts and videos.
And to be very clear, I am a paid supporter of Michael because I admire and want to support the work he has been doing on the Epstein insanity.
Back at you PL, and my God did we just have a respectful and productive exchange on the Internet?! :)
It seems one big thing we agree on is that we don't have to agree with everything to respect and appreciate a person's overall body of work. In fact, it's long struck me as strange how people almost seem to search for one nit they don't agree with or otherwise don't like as a justification for dismissing the whole.
Anyway, salute for not falling into that trap with Michael, who in my experience is a vital corrective to some of the most feverish panics of our times.
The prosecutors have done nothing wrong, except not grilling the monster enough. Hopefully Clancy gets a prison cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
I'll never understand why people feel the urge to comment on articles they haven't read or else that they failed to comprehend, or why they make arguments already refuted in the article they're purporting to opine on, as though the refutation simply didn't exist. Penultimate paragraph:
Indeed, the US Supreme Court has defined the “job” of a prosecutor as follows:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
I enjoy Tracey’s fresh perspectives even when I disagree with them.
The ladies? from TikTok (and a plague of mange on all the people who continue to use that abysmal platform) are at best activism-obsessed individuals who hijack a tragedy to raise outrage in support of their sexist conspiracy theory about the systemic oppression of women, at worst obscene performers who would wallow in any muck in order to get clicks.
The gentlemen? from Xtwitter (and a plague of lice on all the people who continue to use that abysmal platform) are at best activism-obsessed individuals who hijack a tragedy to raise outrage in support of their sexist conspiracy theory about the systemic preference given to women, at worst obscene performers who would wallow in any muck in order to get clicks.
What remains here (and yes, I looked into it after all, since even the British press now talks about it -- but Tracey's articles still are the most clear and to the point) is a tragedy of death by killing compounded by a tragedy of mishandling of justice.
It has nothing to do with the sex of the defender, one way or the other. It has everything to do with people with a twisted and damaging idea of what the adversarial system of trials is supposed to be about. By their behaviour, these two attorneys and their boss fail the test not just of decency, but of what should be admissible in prosecution.
I am aware that defence lawyers do the same often. The first are driven by money, and the second by the notoriety that will get them hired and elected to ever better posts if they produce more convictions.
It is a sorry state of things. I hope the jury can see simple sense. As for punishing the zealots... I doubt that in this general climate a censure based on reasonability and humanity can surface. These are times where zealotry pays.
You are delusional. You are a radical skeptic and solipsist. GOOGLE IT: Research indicates that MEN receive significantly longer prison sentences than w0e-MEN for the 'same' offense. A prominent university of Michigan law school study conducted by Professor Sonja Star found that when controlling for arrest offenses, criminal HIS-story, and other pre charge variables, MEN receive sentences that are OVER 60% LONGER on average than w0e-MEN. (University of Michigan)
The data highlights several key aspects of this gender disparity in the criminal justice system:
.......................................................Key findings of the disparity: SENTENCING LENGTH:
Across federal criminal cases, the sentencing length gap averages roughly 60% to 63% in favor of w0e-MEN. Avoiding incarceration: fe-MALE arrestees are TWICE as likely to avoid incarceration entirely if they are convicted of a crime.
......................................................Discretionary decisions: The majority of this gap is driven by early-stage prosecutorial discretion such as decisions related to charging, plea bargaining, and fact finding rather than the final judge's decision at the sentencing hearing.
.....................................................Contributing factors: Presentencing discretion:
w0e-MEN are significantly more likely to have their charges reduced or dismissed before a trial even begins. (Office of justice programs)
It’s a bullshit diagnosis. I say fry her and put her out of her misery. She jumped out a 14 foot window, that’s less than a gain of five in football.
Yeah I think it's pretty obvious she wasn't nearly as committed to ending her own life as she was to ending her children's. Homicide by strangulation is a gruesome, intimate method of killing, and it is not quick, especially as her two oldest children were of an age where they would be able to put up some resistance.
Yea the suicide attempt was part of her alibi. People have jumped out of burning buildings from higher distances than 14 feet and didn't get paralyzed.
what's the difference between clancy and the psycho who killed Irina on the bus?
clancy has 2 more victims
Michael - from your lips to God's ear.
Last year this same DA's Office twice tried a woman, Karen Read, for murder, the second time having to hire outside counsel that screwed his case so badly, that when he lost, investigations into Police misconduct in the initial investigation caused a lead investigator to be fired and a Plaintiff's claim brought by the putative defendant against the DAs Office is likely to lead to million dollar awards for Read. The laughs just keep on coming
Karen Read is GUILTY. Only morons don't see her guilt. She got a pussy pass. The prosecutor was in cahoots with her which is why she was overcharged to purposely get her off. Karen Read is a witch and she is guilty. And I am no fan of police. Police are just like w0e-MEN. They're running Amok because of qualified immunity which is essentially what w0e-MEN get
All the weak simps on this page. The prosecutors have done nothing wrong except not grilling the monster hard enough. Hopefully Clancy gets sent to PRISON and gets a cell right next to a transgender who has a fetish for ugly witches in wheelchairs
Brother Esposito- you’re all heart and no mind. Cruz’s crew of hapless female Prosecuters(?you understand Cruz needed 2 women to emphasize their caring nature for dead children- another prosecutorial strategic error) got their butts handed to them 11-1. THEY LOST TYE CASE ON ITS MERITS-because the law AND the science came up short . Reddington was brilliant. And I say that as a40 year veteran trial lawyer in Mass.
The two FAT DEI broad prosectors incompetency did not get lost on me. They didn't have to win the case. THE CASE WON ITSELF. GUILTY!
What is also true is that the DUMB FAT BROAD PROSECUTORS lined the jury with NINE DUMB w0e-MEN & 2 beta/cucks.... ONE MAN defended the TRUTH.
For the record, the Read case was in Norfolk County. Not the same prosecutors.
True. Sorry about the Error-BUT/ the same crappy Prosecution. Now that Morrisey appears to sitting out any further runs in Norfolk, expect the same for Cruz. In both counties another political hack can get their moment at the public trough.
What's going on with the 4chan style sock puppet account in these comments?
Just what Tracey noticed two articles ago. I recall back in the day, before the Iraq war, watching video footage (at the time not AI fake-able) of Saddam Hussein's militias proving their masculinity by killing dogs with their bare hands. Some 15 years prior (because I am old) I watched footage of the Bosnian war, in which similarly disposed soldiers proved themselves in similar ways, only towards people.
A lot of men (and a lot of women) foster unreasonable anger and resentment, which is more than happy to find a focus, any focus, but better if something that has irritated them before or that they find lowly. Pogroms (against Jews, against others of similar status) have always happened for the same reason across history.
These froth at the mouth on the internet, expressing quite well how good they are at shutting down their rational brains if they possess one. Unfortunately the global village means that the village idiots are out and about constantly and make a lot of noise. Thereby the 4chan flavour. The spectacle of people spewing base irrational abuse is still spectacle. It is a sad state of things, which I have seen fixed only in places like The Motte. It takes community moderation to weed out the apes and the witches, and the comments sections to articles are hardly a community. Besides, people pay a subscription to be able to comment on Substack... so I guess that the writers must endure them unless borderline criminal.
Nicely explained. Pseudonymously moting on the internet never goes out of fashion.
Quite the contrary, it's incredibly fun to rile up people like you.
Without the channer types, as misguided as they might be in their anime enjoying, we would have societies filled with boredom and boredom people, like you. Drudgery, work for the corporation, milquetoast non-opinions that drive people mad.
We should have more chaos instead.
Maybe more would be better. Isolated trolls seem obsessive and weird.
"deranged"
Dude, she murdered her 3 kids in cold blood. Prosecutors are right to say she didn't give a shit about them.
If she didn't murder her kids what did she do? Lovingly put them down for a nice long nap?
You are wrong. The prosecution has been correct in everything except in stating that Clancy in the least way loved her children.
Really none of this matters as much as the fact that her entire defense is that she started hearing voices for the first and only time during the window of opportunity she deliberately created to kill her kids. Her inconsistent account of what it said or when she heard it underscore what bullshit it is. It would be farcical to allow an insanity defense for anyone with a history of any mental illness who claims to have been experiencing their first and only psychotic delusion during the crime. It’s unfortunate that the prosecutors have wasted time on emotional appeals and trying to contest things that aren’t in dispute and don’t matter.
I watched the arraignment link and it sounds like a standard laying out of the case as the prosecution saw after the Grand Jury indictment, with rebuttal and pleas for interim remediation from the defense. Not the rantings of a wild-eyed prosecutor on some hellish vendetta. At no time did she explicitly state that Clancy didn't try to kill herself. The initial medical examination said her cuts were superficial. She stated there was evidence of blood on the window frame and trailing down the outside the house indicating that Clancy didn't throw herself out of the window. It's also strange that she would take just two pills before she went out the window. Why not take the whole bottle, or all the bottles, just to be sure? With such a gruesome crime that Clancy committed, strangling her kids to death with such force and intent, for the prosecution to roll over and concede from the get go could be seen as being soft on murder. Politically, Plymouth County leans more conservative than the rest of Massachusetts. Maybe the DA miscalculated the capacity for empathy of his constituency. Time will tell.
Excellent case for having these truly incompetent attorneys disbarred. Their behavior is astounding and has probably maligned the jury’s ability to review the facts to come to some determination of guilt as well as in what degree and what the sentence should be.
A Plea deal would probably have been for the best, but the lady and her attorneys thought they could win a ‘by reason of insanity’, which would have been a state mental facility instead of a penitentiary? Neither side sounds like they were too bright, but very happy with all the publicity. Pulpy true crime. I am sure NetFlix will have the documentary in the can by 2028.
Prosecutors are incentivized to join every normie lynch mob.
People who call Massachusetts politics a non-stop Irish Catholic shit show are simply bigots.