Lindsay Clancy Juror: Most Of Us Were Able To ‘Get Over’ The Dead Children
The article discusses the public and juror reactions to Lindsay Clancy’s case, highlighting a disconnect between acknowledging her guilt and prioritizing other emotional or personality-based concerns. Many TikTok users and some jurors appear to focus less on the fact that Clancy admitted to killing her three young children through strangulation, and instead emphasize their feelings about her defense, prosecutors, and the perceived arrogance of a juror who struggled to “get over” the tragedy. This shift in focus reveals a broader tendency to eschew moral accountability and instead center on personal judgments and resentments, notably among certain predominantly white women on social media. The piece critiques this mentality, implying that such attitudes undermine the understanding of basic moral concepts and suggest potential danger, as they dismiss the gravity of the crime and justify emotional biases over justice and truth.
Listening to all the Lindsay Clancy truthers on TikTok and elsewhere, you notice something right away: None of them really care that Clancy admits to having strangled her own three young children to death. The jurors who just gave a TV interview were exactly the same.
Three of them spoke with NBC10 in Boston this week, and one in particular said it most explicitly. Remarking on the one holdout juror who refused to acquit, Kellie Farina, a middle-aged white woman, said, “He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
That was just one of two times that any of the jurors referenced the dead children in the interview. The rest was how they felt about the prosecutors (“I just found her to be harsh. Very, very harsh,” said Farina); how they felt about Clancy’s defense attorney (Roni Carlson, another middle-aged white woman, said he was entertaining and yet a third middle-aged white woman, Paula Devlin, said the attorney’s “compassion” for Clancy was “amazing”); and their frustration with the holdout juror, who Devlin described as “very arrogant.”
To them, the fact that we’re here because a mother used rubber exercise bands to choke her three children to death is a minor detail only maybe worth considering in passing, if they must. The more important matter at hand is how they feel about the personalities in the same room as them at present, and whether anyone wasn’t able to “get over” the inconvenient dead kids so that they can let the stressed out murderous mom off the hook. And how “arrogant” that anyone couldn’t.
Again, that mentality is all over TikTok and it’s almost exclusively coming from women, who are almost exclusively white. They’re all able to “get over” the dead kids and instead focus on the plight of Clancy, their enduring suspicions and resentments for her now ex-husband, and the medical providers who “failed” the woman with a satanic kind of postpartum depression. That’s where the action is. Why couldn’t that lone juror see that? Was he stupid or just arrogant?
It’s not clear if any of these people knows that every time they open their mouths about this trial, they’re raising doubts among the broader public — especially men — about the capacity for women to understand basic concepts of right from wrong, regardless of their medical history. Clancy’s defense isn’t that she didn’t know right from wrong before she killed her children or after. It’s only that she didn’t know it when she plotted for her husband to leave the house for take-out and then used that time to grip each of her kids around the neck until they were dead.
If that’s an excuse these women are willing to entertain, they’re revealing themselves to be every bit as potentially violent, untrustworthy and dangerous as Clancy.
Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse into Anti-American Filth.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."