I have been sickened by the attacks on Patrick. Women claiming he killed the children and framed Lindsay. This is breathtaking ignorance. But it is like the attacks on Erika Kirk. What makes people so nasty?
Apparently there was a photo circulating of Patrick and his wife holding hands. Oh the horror!! It’s been three years. Was he supposed to spend the rest of his life self flagellating over what his former wife did?
I listened to his testimony as well as other remarks. He has been incredibly kind to Lindsay. He didn’t express hatred toward her. While I don’t think she was “sick” but she was a sociopathic narcissist, he is showing incredible graciousness and forgiveness.
I hope he can build a new life. But he will never have a day of peace wondering “if only…”
My expectations of the internet are low but the commentary on this case has been bizarre and malevolent. Agree too that Shapiro has been giving very clear-headed and reasonable responses.
As a lawyer, I appreciated your inclusion of the insane reversal of the insanity defense, pun intended, that Massachusetts foolishly has on its books. This would be a much different trial anywhere else.
There truly is something grotesque about trying to frame the dad in a situation this utterly clear cut, and the social media frenzy about it makes me truly worried about a whole rash of contagious killings (a few have already happened I believe). I can scarcely imagine just how nearly impossible it must have been for him to wake up that next day, week, month, year, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And then to be blamed in some freaky true-crime fever dreams when there’s no reason to believe the alternate story must just be agonizing.
One of the things that I think marks true remorse or even just horror in a situation like this can only be revealed longitudinally over many years and decades. Andrea Yates has rather famously made a point to have her lawyer come every year to waive her right to a potential release from the criminal mental hospital she’s in. The Son of Sam has waived his parole hearings and tried to get them canceled, though obviously in his case, there’s a fairly credible Christian profession. Ms. Clancy’s been spared a death sentence both by virtue of the state she’s in and the times she’s in had it been in a different state. Time will tell a great deal.
Hi Matt. I don't think anyone could take away from this piece that I think it's ever okay to kill your children or that I think she didn't know what she was doing. People who follow my Twitter can also tell what I think here. I'm definitely not shying away from anything. I'm with the holdout juror.
Last clarification, because my first comment here was inaccurate about the law--my followup is I think correct, that it was actually sufficient to show she knew it was illegal and could control her actions. But my position was that no matter what the law said, it was bad.
Hi again. I respectfully do think it's a stretch to take that away from my article. I also think Clancy was lucid. The law is (as it were) insane in that it allows you to potentially go free even if you were aware of what you were doing.
Just breaking this down a little more as it's been explained to my understanding: It seems like the law says the prosecution must show (A or B) and C, where A = "understood the action was immoral," B = "understood action was illegal," and C = "could control her actions."
I don't see how people thought it was ambiguous that she could control her actions, even if one were to throw in the part about hearing a voice. And normally we refer to people who don't "understand an action is immoral" as sociopaths and give them jail sentences.
The problem with a view like Walsh’s is that it’s correctly black and white on the whole question of “don’t kill your children” while framing the question of her actions, mental state, and the rest as a similar binary when there’s real complexity in place for every crime, even if the crime itself is straightforward.
This is why we have different standards for involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, and 1st degree murder, because they all relate to the perpetrator’s criminal mental state. Her state on that day may well provide some measure of excuse that lessens the crime she should be culpable of, but it should not justify or clear of her the guilt as the insanity defense she’s trying for unfortunately does.
Frankly, even if the state didn’t have the stupid insanity presumption it does, 1st degree murder is hard to prove when there’s all of this psychiatric evidence of at the very least someone who’s rather unhinged. 2nd Degree Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter are the much stronger cases, including of being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt since they don’t require premeditation. Were she not loaded up with lots of mind altering drugs of varying quantities and varying compliance, those facts of telling her husband to leave the house and then killing the kids are clear cut 1st degree. In some red state where she’d likely hang, a plea deal for 2nd degree murder would be in the books. With the deck stacked against them as it is up there, it boggles the mind why any prosecutor would have tried 1st degree murder for someone as psychiatrically involved as an even an option other than to create publicity and a real risk she goes totally free.
Denying that postpartum psychosis or depression are real phenomena as Walsh does grossly oversimplifies the situation and frankly under-addresses those who have gone through those conditions and not killed their children. It reminds me a bit of all those who’d shoot those suffering from shell shock for cowardice. It can be a scary documented condition and still not morally clear her.
Yeah, Walsh's separate "By the way, there's no such thing as postpartum depression" jag was my main frustration, just not necessary for any reasonable commentary on this case.
I wouldn't say women with postpartum who don't kill their kids are heroes or anything though.
I have been sickened by the attacks on Patrick. Women claiming he killed the children and framed Lindsay. This is breathtaking ignorance. But it is like the attacks on Erika Kirk. What makes people so nasty?
Apparently there was a photo circulating of Patrick and his wife holding hands. Oh the horror!! It’s been three years. Was he supposed to spend the rest of his life self flagellating over what his former wife did?
I listened to his testimony as well as other remarks. He has been incredibly kind to Lindsay. He didn’t express hatred toward her. While I don’t think she was “sick” but she was a sociopathic narcissist, he is showing incredible graciousness and forgiveness.
I hope he can build a new life. But he will never have a day of peace wondering “if only…”
He says it took a long time for him to forgive himself for not going to the basement first when he came home. 😔
Yes can you imagine his regret and second guessing himself.
Great piece, Bethel.
My expectations of the internet are low but the commentary on this case has been bizarre and malevolent. Agree too that Shapiro has been giving very clear-headed and reasonable responses.
As a lawyer, I appreciated your inclusion of the insane reversal of the insanity defense, pun intended, that Massachusetts foolishly has on its books. This would be a much different trial anywhere else.
There truly is something grotesque about trying to frame the dad in a situation this utterly clear cut, and the social media frenzy about it makes me truly worried about a whole rash of contagious killings (a few have already happened I believe). I can scarcely imagine just how nearly impossible it must have been for him to wake up that next day, week, month, year, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And then to be blamed in some freaky true-crime fever dreams when there’s no reason to believe the alternate story must just be agonizing.
One of the things that I think marks true remorse or even just horror in a situation like this can only be revealed longitudinally over many years and decades. Andrea Yates has rather famously made a point to have her lawyer come every year to waive her right to a potential release from the criminal mental hospital she’s in. The Son of Sam has waived his parole hearings and tried to get them canceled, though obviously in his case, there’s a fairly credible Christian profession. Ms. Clancy’s been spared a death sentence both by virtue of the state she’s in and the times she’s in had it been in a different state. Time will tell a great deal.
Hi Matt. I don't think anyone could take away from this piece that I think it's ever okay to kill your children or that I think she didn't know what she was doing. People who follow my Twitter can also tell what I think here. I'm definitely not shying away from anything. I'm with the holdout juror.
Last clarification, because my first comment here was inaccurate about the law--my followup is I think correct, that it was actually sufficient to show she knew it was illegal and could control her actions. But my position was that no matter what the law said, it was bad.
Hi again. I respectfully do think it's a stretch to take that away from my article. I also think Clancy was lucid. The law is (as it were) insane in that it allows you to potentially go free even if you were aware of what you were doing.
Just breaking this down a little more as it's been explained to my understanding: It seems like the law says the prosecution must show (A or B) and C, where A = "understood the action was immoral," B = "understood action was illegal," and C = "could control her actions."
I don't see how people thought it was ambiguous that she could control her actions, even if one were to throw in the part about hearing a voice. And normally we refer to people who don't "understand an action is immoral" as sociopaths and give them jail sentences.
The problem with a view like Walsh’s is that it’s correctly black and white on the whole question of “don’t kill your children” while framing the question of her actions, mental state, and the rest as a similar binary when there’s real complexity in place for every crime, even if the crime itself is straightforward.
This is why we have different standards for involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, and 1st degree murder, because they all relate to the perpetrator’s criminal mental state. Her state on that day may well provide some measure of excuse that lessens the crime she should be culpable of, but it should not justify or clear of her the guilt as the insanity defense she’s trying for unfortunately does.
Frankly, even if the state didn’t have the stupid insanity presumption it does, 1st degree murder is hard to prove when there’s all of this psychiatric evidence of at the very least someone who’s rather unhinged. 2nd Degree Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter are the much stronger cases, including of being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt since they don’t require premeditation. Were she not loaded up with lots of mind altering drugs of varying quantities and varying compliance, those facts of telling her husband to leave the house and then killing the kids are clear cut 1st degree. In some red state where she’d likely hang, a plea deal for 2nd degree murder would be in the books. With the deck stacked against them as it is up there, it boggles the mind why any prosecutor would have tried 1st degree murder for someone as psychiatrically involved as an even an option other than to create publicity and a real risk she goes totally free.
Denying that postpartum psychosis or depression are real phenomena as Walsh does grossly oversimplifies the situation and frankly under-addresses those who have gone through those conditions and not killed their children. It reminds me a bit of all those who’d shoot those suffering from shell shock for cowardice. It can be a scary documented condition and still not morally clear her.
Yeah, Walsh's separate "By the way, there's no such thing as postpartum depression" jag was my main frustration, just not necessary for any reasonable commentary on this case.
I wouldn't say women with postpartum who don't kill their kids are heroes or anything though.