Matt Walsh has pushed back against online defenses of Lindsay Clancy as her murder trial jury remains unable to reach a verdict. The conservative commentator argues that Clancy’s earlier reputation as a loving mother does not answer whether she was criminally responsible for killing her three children in January 2023. His comments came as jurors reported a deadlock after about 17–18 hours of deliberations. Judge William Sullivan told them to keep working toward a verdict before dismissing them for the day. No verdict had been reached as of Tuesday evening, with deliberations set to continue Wednesday.
Matt Walsh challenges Lindsay Clancy’s “loving mother” defense
In posts on X, Matt Walsh argued that being described as kind or normal before a crime does not prove someone was incapable of committing it.“He was such a nice quiet guy. I can’t believe he did this!” That’s such a common thing to hear from friends and family of murderers that it’s a cliche. And yet Clancy’s groupies think it suddenly proves something in her specific case.He also wrote:“Lindsay Clancy wasn’t a murderer before she murdered, therefore she’s not guilty” That’s really the entire line of argument from these idiots. Clancy was supposedly nice and wonderful before she killed her kids. This proves, somehow, that she’s not responsible for killing them. Somehow it hasn’t occurred to these people that a huge majority of the most barbaric killers in American history were described as “nice” and even “loving” before they went on their murder spree. That’s how psychopaths operate. This is nothing new. You dimwits.Walsh also said: “The only chance for a fair trial in the Clancy case is with a jury of all men.”After the deadlock was reported, he wrote: “If they can’t get a guilty verdict here, it will never happen. Clancy has become a folk hero to legions of braindead soulless women. There’s no way to keep those women off of a jury, especially in Massachusetts.”
Lindsay Clancy trial focuses on mental state and planning
The case concerns the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Clancy has admitted killing the children. Her defense says postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand her actions, while prosecutors argue she acted deliberately and point to steps taken before the killings, including sending her husband, Patrick Clancy, on an errand.Walsh has rejected that defense, writing: “Every rapist, murderer, and predator in existence has “mental health” issues by the standards of a normal person… Lindsay Clancy cannot make an “insanity” argument that wouldn’t also apply to all of the worst, most barbaric freaks in history. To carve out some kind of special ad hoc exception in her case would be not just unjust but totally incoherent.”He later claimed: “Notice how Lindsay Clancy was very tentative and apprehensive in her “suicide attempt” but extremely violent, systematic, methodical, and determined when she strangled her children to death. That’s because she hated the children much more than she hated herself. She was far more determined to kill them. If she showed even half the aggression to herself that she showed them, she wouldn’t be alive right now.”On August 28, Walsh wrote: “Seems like not a good sign that there’s no verdict yet. This is a very simple case. Did Lindsay Clancy intentionally murder her children? Yes. Did she plan it out ahead of time? Yes. That’s really all you need to know. First degree murder. Should take a jury of sane people about 10 minutes to reach a conclusion.”Reuters reported that jurors said Tuesday they could not reach a unanimous decision. Judge Sullivan ordered them to continue deliberating. If they remain deadlocked, a mistrial could follow and prosecutors could potentially retry the case.
