Lindsay Clancy admits to killing their children. So why is there an online groundswell blaming her ex-husband?

Greg Derr/Pool The Patriot Ledger/AP

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article contains graphic descriptions of child killings, suicidal ideation, and an attempt to die by suicide.

Lindsay Clancy admits to killing her three small children.

Her own lawyers don’t deny she did it but say she should not be held criminally responsible for her actions, arguing that Lindsay was suffering from postpartum psychosis and extreme mental illness at the time. She is suing her healthcare providers, alleging medical malpractice for their failure to adequately diagnose and treat her.

The possibility of a mistrial now looms over the case, as jurors have repeatedly told the judge they are unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

The murder trial has captivated an audience far beyond the coastal Boston suburb where the 2023 family tragedy resulted in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan and a suicide attempt by their mother that left her paralyzed from the waist down.

The interest in the case has brought dozens of people to the courthouse for a glimpse at the proceedings. One woman, a retired nurse, was even arrested and pleaded not guilty to jury intimidation. Her attorney said she was just trying to take a photo of Lindsay Clancy.

Even as deliberations continue , the surge in public interest in the case has resulted in a wave of online scrutiny aimed at someone who by all accounts, is not a suspect. Lack of trust in authorities and disinformation swirl in online communities, experts say , often leading people to form alternative theories that are rewarded with increased engagement on social media.

Why then, are throngs of armchair analysts online pointing fingers at her ex-husband, Patrick, blaming him for the deaths?

Here’s what we know about why Patrick Clancy was ruled out as a suspect – and why such conspiracy theories often emerge from highly publicized legal cases.

Patrick took the stand as the prosecution’s first witness over a month ago. For some, his testimony raised more questions than answers.

Because Lindsay Clancy agreed to what’s called a stipulation of facts in the case, prosecutors don’t have to present all of their evidence in court. When there is a gap in the televised trial, it creates a vacuum many content creators are filling with alternative hypotheses.

Many are leaning into their own unsubstantiated suppositions, even those not backed by evidence.

“I do not believe that Lindsay Clancy committed these crimes. I fully believe that Patrick convinced her that she did,” one TikTok user said.

“I didn’t doubt anything that happened until this man opened his mouth,” another user said.

Attorney Howard Cooper, with Todd & Weld, the law firm representing Patrick Clancy, calls statements like those patently false and defamatory, warning of the real-life consequences making such claims can have.

“The facts are indisputable: Patrick Clancy has suffered an unspeakable and unimaginable loss. Unfortunately, the tragedy Patrick has experienced has been compounded by patently false, defamatory, and injurious public statements,” his statement reads. “The individuals making those statements – from minor influencers to major celebrities – should be on notice that their despicable actions and false, defamatory statements have caused real life consequences to the health and safety of Patrick and his family.”

These conspiracy theories spreading online, one expert says, stem from people’s struggles to find a fulfilling explanation for what has happened.

“Where a mother has killed children, you’re motivated to think – that can’t be,” said Michael Wagner, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication. His research focuses on how individuals’ experiences in online environments are associated with what they believe to be true.

While most homicide investigations first look at people closest to the victims, Patrick Clancy likely would have been ruled out as a suspect early on because of his solid alibi, said Ken Corey, current fellow at the Chicago Police Lab, and former NYPD chief.

“Everyone is a suspect until they’re not,” Corey explained. “They’re only not going to be a suspect when there’s either compelling evidence that shows that they did not or could not have committed this crime, or that there’s compelling evidence showing that someone else actually did commit the crime.”

Evidence publicly presented in the Clancy case indicates Lindsay was the only adult at the family home when investigators believe the children were attacked. Corey says it clearly shows Patrick was not home.

“He is actually elsewhere, and that’s backed up, not just by surveillance video of him in the CVS,” the former police chief explained. During their investigation, detectives would have taken Patrick’s phone to track his movements and, depending on the vehicle, obtained his car’s onboard GPS data “to conclusively show that he could not have committed the crime because he was not physically there at the time that the crime was committed,” he said.

Before he left the family home shortly after 5 p.m. on January 24, 2023, to pick up medication and dinner, Patrick rocked the baby for a minute, noticed his older son eating on the couch and kissed his daughter on the head, he testified .

Prior to entering the pharmacy, an approximately three-minute drive from the family’s home, evidence presented in court showed Patrick sent an email, then went inside the store.

While at the pharmacy, phone records show Patrick called Lindsay, but she didn’t answer. She called him back about a minute later – around the time investigators believe the killings took place – and the two had a brief conversation with Lindsay confirming it was fine to pick up the generic version of the medicine she had requested, Patrick testified . Surveillance footage of Patrick inside the pharmacy and a receipt from his purchase were shown in court.

After checking out at the pharmacy, Patrick drove approximately 10 minutes to a restaurant to pick up the dinner order Lindsay had placed. Surveillance video shows Patrick walked into the restaurant at 5:54 p.m. and was inside for less than two minutes. Patrick testified it took around 10-12 minutes to drive home.

At home, Patrick said he found Lindsay outside, lying face-up and bleeding in their backyard and called 911. When he asked where their children were, she told him they were in the basement, he testified. She did not mention they were injured or needed help, he said.

As first responders arrived and began tending to Lindsay, Patrick went to the basement of the home, where he found his children. Responding officers heard screams coming from inside the home and ran into the basement. There they found Patrick, who looked up and screamed, “She killed the f**king kids!” a Duxbury police officer testified.

The fact that Lindsay Clancy’s legal team is not challenging that she strangled her children is another reason to exclude Patrick as a suspect, Corey said.

“If there was the slightest chance that they could instill some reasonable doubt by introducing an alternate theory of the crime and shifting the blame onto him instead of her, they certainly would have done so,” Corey told CNN.

Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger

So, with an admission by Lindsay and evidence placing Patrick outside of the home during the killings, why are amateur sleuths still devouring and dissecting the details in an attempt to find another explanation for the killings?

Wagner’s research shows that when people have a lot of knowledge about a topic, but very low trust in institutions, they become more likely to adopt conspiracy theories. Those conspiracy theories, Wagner said, are often ways of looking at the world that provide answers to questions when an outcome is too uncomfortable for people.

“So, if they’re following the trial and have learned a lot of detail about the trial, but don’t trust the legal system, and don’t trust police, and don’t trust the news media, they may be more likely to adopt conspiracy theories as a way to explain why the outcome they think should happen isn’t happening,” Wagner elaborated, calling the phenomenon a “toxic soup for the development of conspiratorial thinking.”

What tends to go viral on social media, Wagner said, are things that are highly emotional or often not verifiable or true. “When people see those things churn up in their feed again and again and again, because the algorithm prizes that kind of content, they also become more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking,” he said.

Adding to the issue may also be that people are seeing clips from the televised trial in “very distilled segments” on social media, Wagner said, often from creators with their own agenda, like saying: “It couldn’t have been her; it had to be something else.”

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When parents kill: Forensic psychiatrists examine the motives behind unthinkable murders

The phenomenon, Corey said, is something law enforcement trainers caution detectives against: investigative bias. “You can cherry-pick certain facts that will point to Patrick Clancy, or you can manipulate certain facts that will make him appear to be guilty and share those online. But you’re doing that by ignoring the facts that exculpate him,” Corey explained.

People are also often so committed to keeping their own perspective, Wagner said, that when contrary evidence is presented to them, they find ways to explain away that evidence. “And it happens the most with the educated, ironically, because the educated have been taught to argue with evidence,” Wagner added.

For many, it could be this simple: the horror and unfathomable tragedy of a woman, described as a doting mother suffering from a mental health crisis , ending the lives of her beloved children, may just be too hard to grasp.

This article has been updated with additional information.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts or mental health matters, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988 (or 800-273-8255) to connect with a trained counselor, or visit the NSPL site.

格雷格·德尔/《爱国者纪事报》/美联社

编者按：本文包含对杀害儿童、自杀念头和自杀未遂的详细描述。

林赛·克兰西承认杀害了自己的三个年幼的孩子。

她的律师并未否认她做了这件事，但辩称她不应承担刑事责任，理由是林赛当时患有产后精神病和严重的精神疾病。她正在起诉她的医疗服务提供者，指控他们未能充分诊断和治疗她，构成医疗事故。

由于陪审员多次向法官表示无法达成一致裁决，该案目前面临审判无效的可能。

这起谋杀案的审判吸引了远超波士顿沿海郊区的观众。2023 年，这场家庭悲剧导致 5 岁的 Cora、3 岁的 Dawson 和 8 个月大的 Callan 丧生，他们的母亲试图自杀，导致腰部以下瘫痪。

这起案件引发了公众的广泛关注，数十人涌入法院旁听。其中一名退休护士甚至被捕，她对涉嫌恐吓陪审团的指控拒不不认罪。她的律师辩称，她当时只是想拍一张林赛·克兰西的照片。

尽管审理仍在进行，但公众对此案的关注度激增，导致网络上掀起了一股舆论风暴，矛头直指一位据各方说法并非嫌疑人的人。专家指出，网络社区中充斥着对当局的不信任和虚假信息，这往往促使人们形成各种另类理论，而这些理论又能带来社交媒体上更高的互动量。

那么，为什么网上有大批键盘侠指责她的前夫帕特里克，将死亡归咎于他呢？

以下是我们了解到的帕特里克·克兰西被排除嫌疑人资格的原因——以及为什么此类阴谋论经常从备受瞩目的法律案件中出现的原因。

一个月前，帕特里克作为控方第一位证人出庭作证。对一些人来说，他的证词提出的问题比解答的问题更多。

由于林赛·克兰西同意了所谓的案件事实认定，检方无需在法庭上出示所有证据。电视直播的庭审中出现证据缺口，便造成了信息真空，许多内容创作者纷纷提出其他假设来填补这一空白。

许多人倾向于相信自己未经证实的假设，即使这些假设没有证据支持。

一位TikTok用户表示：“我不相信林赛·克兰西犯下了这些罪行。我完全相信是帕特里克让她相信自己犯了这些罪行。”

“直到这个人开口说话，我才开始怀疑之前发生的一切，”另一位用户说道。

代表帕特里克·克兰西的托德和韦尔德律师事务所的霍华德·库珀律师称，这些言论显然是虚假和诽谤性的，并警告说，发表此类言论可能会带来现实生活中的后果。

“事实无可辩驳：帕特里克·克兰西遭受了难以言喻、难以想象的损失。不幸的是，帕特里克所经历的悲剧因一些明显虚假、诽谤且有害的公开言论而雪上加霜，”声明中写道。“发表这些言论的人——从名不见经传的小网红到家喻户晓的名人——都应该意识到，他们卑鄙的行为和虚假诽谤的言论已经对帕特里克及其家人的健康和安全造成了切实的后果。”

一位专家表示，这些在网上流传的阴谋论源于人们难以找到对所发生事件的令人满意的解释。

“当一位母亲杀害了孩子时，你会不由自主地想——这不可能，”威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校新闻与大众传播学院院长迈克尔·瓦格纳说道。他的研究重点在于个人在网络环境中的经历如何与他们认为的真相相关联。

芝加哥警察实验室现任研究员、前纽约警察局局长肯·科里表示，虽然大多数凶杀案调查首先会调查与受害者关系最密切的人，但由于帕特里克·克兰西有确凿的不在场证明，他很可能在早期就被排除在嫌疑人之外。

“在排除嫌疑之前，每个人都是嫌疑人，”科里解释说。“只有当有确凿的证据表明他们没有或不可能犯下这起罪行，或者有确凿的证据表明实际上是其他人犯下了这起罪行时，他们才会被排除嫌疑。”

克兰西案中公开的证据表明，调查人员认为孩子们遭到袭击时，林赛是家中唯一的成年人。科里说，这清楚地表明帕特里克当时不在家。

“他实际上在别处，这一点不仅有他在CVS药店的监控录像为证，”这位前警长解释道。他说，在调查过程中，侦探们会拿走帕特里克的手机来追踪他的行踪，并根据车辆情况获取他车上的车载GPS数据，“以最终证明他不可能犯下这起罪行，因为案发时他并不在现场。”

2023 年 1 月 24 日下午 5 点刚过，帕特里克离开家去取药和晚餐。他作证说，在离开家之前，他摇晃了一会儿婴儿，注意到他的大儿子在沙发上吃东西，然后亲吻了女儿的头。

法庭上提供的证据显示，在进入距离家大约三分钟车程的药店之前，帕特里克发送了一封电子邮件，然后走进了商店。

电话记录显示，帕特里克在药房时曾给林赛打电话，但她没有接听。大约一分钟后——调查人员认为案发时间大致相同——林赛回拨了电话，两人进行了简短的通话。帕特里克作证说，林赛确认可以取走她之前要求的仿制药。法庭播放了帕特里克在药房内的监控录像以及他的购药收据。

在药房结账后，帕特里克开车大约10分钟到一家餐厅取琳赛订的晚餐。监控录像显示，帕特里克于下午5点54分走进餐厅，在里面待了不到两分钟。帕特里克作证说，开车回家大约花了10到12分钟。

帕特里克说，他回到家后发现琳赛仰面躺在后院，浑身是血，于是拨打了911。他作证说，当他问琳赛孩子们在哪里时，琳赛告诉他孩子们在地下室。他说，琳赛没有提到孩子们受伤或需要帮助。

当急救人员赶到并开始救治林赛时，帕特里克去了房子的地下室，在那里他发现了自己的孩子。赶到现场的警员听到屋内传来尖叫声，便冲进地下室。他们在那里发现了帕特里克，他抬起头，尖叫道：“她杀了那些该死的孩子！”一位杜克斯伯里警官作证说。

科里说，林赛·克兰西的法律团队没有对她勒死孩子一事提出异议，这也是排除帕特里克为嫌疑人的另一个原因。

科里告诉 CNN：“如果他们有机会通过引入另一种犯罪理论并将罪责转移到他身上而不是她身上来制造一些合理的怀疑，他们肯定会这样做。”

格雷格·德尔/Pool/《爱国者纪事报》

既然林赛已经承认罪行，而且有证据表明帕特里克在案发时不在家，为什么业余侦探们还要继续钻研细节，试图找到对这起谋杀案的另一种解释呢？

瓦格纳的研究表明，当人们对某个主题了解颇多，但对机构的信任度却很低时，他们就更容易接受阴谋论。瓦格纳说，这些阴谋论通常是人们看待世界的一种方式，当某些结果令他们感到不适时，它们可以为这些问题提供答案。

“所以，如果他们关注审判，了解了很多审判细节，但不信任法律体系，不信任警察，也不信任新闻媒体，他们就更有可能接受阴谋论来解释为什么他们认为应该发生的结果没有发生，”瓦格纳进一步解释说，并称这种现象是“滋生阴谋论思想的毒汤”。

瓦格纳表示，社交媒体上容易疯传的内容往往是那些情绪化或未经证实或不真实的信息。“当人们在信息流中反复看到这类内容时，由于算法会推送这类内容，他们也更容易产生阴谋论的想法。”他说道。

瓦格纳表示，雪上加霜的是，人们在社交媒体上看到的电视审判片段往往是“经过大幅删减的片段”，而且这些片段通常来自一些有自己目的的创作者，比如有人会说：“不可能是她干的；一定是另有其人。”

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

父母杀人：法医精神病学家探究骇人听闻的谋杀案背后的动机

科里说，这种现象正是执法培训人员告诫侦探们要警惕的：调查偏见。“你可以挑选一些指向帕特里克·克兰西的事实，或者你可以篡改一些让他看起来有罪的事实，然后把这些内容发布到网上。但你这样做的前提是忽略了那些能证明他清白的事实，”科里解释道。

瓦格纳说，人们往往过于执着于维护自己的观点，以至于当面对相反的证据时，他们会想方设法地去解释这些证据。“讽刺的是，这种情况在受过良好教育的人群中最为常见，因为受过教育的人从小就被教导要用证据来论证，”瓦格纳补充道。

对许多人来说，事情可能很简单：一个被描述为慈爱的母亲，却因精神健康危机而结束自己心爱孩子的生命，这种恐怖和难以理解的悲剧可能太难以理解了。

本文已更新，添加了更多信息。

编者按：如果您或您认识的人正在与自杀念头或心理健康问题作斗争，请拨打全国预防自杀生命线 988（或 800-273-8255）与训练有素的咨询师联系，或访问 NSPL 网站。