How the Lindsay Clancy Trial Escalated into Mob Justice

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Henry Herrera

Telephone: +1-301-801-0608

How the Lindsay Clancy Trial Escalated into Mob Justice

September 28, 2026 – Criminal justice systems are based on time-tested principles such as legal representation of both parties, fair procedures, and the presumption of innocence. But the recent trial of Lindsay Clancy reveals what happens when persons reject the rules-based approach that undergirds Western law and substitute it with so-called “feminist justice.” (1)

A recent article by Canadian commentator Janice Fiamengo examines the dimensions of feminist justice. Fiamengo writes the feminist concept of morality reflects an “ever-shifting and flexible, approach to moral judgement, than the rules-based approach developed and refined by the men who crafted western law.” (2)

As the Lindsay Clancy case recently unfolded in Massachusetts, feminist justice was on full display:

Trial of Lindsay Clancy

Clancy was charged with taking her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, to the basement of their Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023, wrapping an exercise band around their necks, and choking them to death.

Since Lindsay was the only adult in the house at the time, there is no doubt that Clancy was the perpetrator. So her legal defense was based on the claim that she was suffering from “postpartum psychosis.” But that explanation is unlikely because she did not display any psychotic symptoms before the killings.

The feminist moral code, which reflexively blames men for all female misfortune, was revealed by Clancy’s claim that a “male voice” instructed her to strangle her three children. (3)

Jury Deliberations

The jury consisted of 12 persons – 9 female and 3 male — who deliberated for 40 hours. Under our legal system, jurors are expected to objectively weigh the evidence, debate the merits of the case, and then vote their consciences.

But first-hand accounts of the deliberations revealed a very different approach:

The female jurors indulged in “lots of crying,” tears, and hugging. (4)
Afterwards, juror Paula Devlin expressed the opinion that healthcare for women was in a state of disrepair: “we knew that this [trial] was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future.” (5)

In other words, Devlin saw the trial not as a way to render justice for the horrific deaths of three innocent children, but rather as a tactic to make a political statement. The nine female jurors cast aside objective evidence as they “traded justice for feelings.”

Mob Justice

Feminist activists were visible throughout the trial, jury deliberations, and after details of Michael Desronvil’s vote to convict became public knowledge. Desronvil quickly became the target of intense criticism. (6)

Police escorts were needed to retrieve belongings for Desronvil’s temporary relocation. The family characterized the whole campaign as having “ruined his life.” (7) Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, later referred to the persons issuing death threats as the “lunatic mob.” (8)

Standard judicial rules require the presentation of objective evidence, expert testimony, and thoughtful jury deliberations. But as the Lindsay Clancy case reveals, legal proceedings driven by notions of “feminist justice” can soon escalate into mob justice.

The Domestic Abuse and Violence International Alliance – DAVIA — unites 235 member organizations from 44 countries in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. https://endtodv.org/davia/

Links: