Conservative commentator Candace Owens has waded into the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, declaring the Massachusetts mother “obviously not guilty” of killing her three children in January 2023—a claim that has drawn sharp rebukes from across the political spectrum.
Clancy, who is currently on trial for the murders of her children—ages five, three, and eight months at the time—has had her defense team concede that she committed the act. Their argument rests on postpartum psychosis, which they say should place her in a mental institution for life rather than prison. Clancy herself confessed to the killings.
Despite that, Owens said in a video clip shared on social media: “Lindsay Clancy is obviously not guilty. There are a fleet of doctors who should be imprisoned for what they put her on.” Owens, known for her critiques of the pharmaceutical industry, blamed the drugs Clancy was prescribed, arguing that big pharma “gets away with murder all the time and in this case they are getting away with the murder of really her three children but also completely destroyed her life.”
Owens added: “She was put into an intentional psychosis when she probably just needed to give her kids away for a weekend to get better.”
Her comments have been met with disbelief, particularly given the defense’s clear admission. As one social media user noted, “‘Obviously not guilty’ is an absolutely insane thing to say about a woman who admitted to killing her three children.”
The trial’s core issue is not whether Clancy killed her children—she did—but whether she was legally insane at the time. Testimony about her mental state, including her prescribed medications, is central to that determination.
Some supporters of Clancy have gone further, suggesting that her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, was the actual perpetrator, pointing to the 911 call they claim was “too calm.” But NBC Boston correspondent Sue O’Connell, who heard the call in court, has dismantled that theory.
O’Connell recounted: “What I’m hearing some people say about Patrick Clancy is not supported by the 911 call. You may have heard that he sounded too calm or that Lindsay Clancy was speaking in complete sentences. Let me tell you, I heard the 911 call. I was in the courtroom when it was played.”
She described the emotional impact: “What I heard from Patrick Clancy when he found his children did not sound like a performance to me. The screaming, the howling, the crying. It immediately took me back to that doorstep in the 1980s.” O’Connell referenced her experience telling a mother her son had died from AIDS-related illness decades ago.
Another online commentator, who spoke about the case, criticized the trend of sympathizing with Clancy: “Lindsay confessed, the defense agrees, and she’ll likely go to the ward for the rest of her life. I swear these people do not care about the children at all. They just wanna make the guy look bad because they hate men.” She also noted that “at least Candace Owens has new things to warp and make millions off of.”
The anti-pharma angle, however, resonates with some. One tweet highlighted that “1 in 6 Americans are prescribed SSRIs,” while contrasting that with the rarity of a mother sending her husband on an errand and then strangling her children one by one.
As the trial continues, the grift persists, with those like Owens ignoring the evidence and the 911 call, as Townhall noted. The only question the courts are deciding is Clancy’s mental state—not whether she committed the crime.
Source: townhall.com — https://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/08/21/candace-owens-lindsay-clancy-n2681645
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Do your own research and consult a licensed professional before making financial decisions.
