Chronicling the ongoing intersectional struggle to liberate women — progressively defined to include the legacy kind and the transgender variety — from the Patriarchy™, one microaggression at a time.
‘Altruistic filicide’
That this lunatic Paula Devlin managed to get on a jury — that she would even be trusted with a license to operate a motor vehicle — is a testament to the failed legal system in the anarcho-tyranny under which we labor, in which women who brutally murder their own children somehow become feminist folk heroes and, in the court of public opinion, the Patriarchy™ takes her place as the accused.
Related: #Resistance Liberals Tattoo Themselves Blue to Oppose Fascism, Spot ‘Safe People’
When the prosecution failed to eliminate her from the jury pool, they guaranteed, at a minimum, a mistrial because there was no way this absolute fruitcake was ever going to be convinced not to acquit.
I think Dr. Resnick, his testimony about altruistic filicide was really impactful because all throughout the trial we had all the witnesses, there had been nothing but good said about Lindsay and how amazing of a mother she was and how much she loved her children. We saw that in every picture that was taken of the house on the night that this happened. Everywhere you looked, there was just love*. There was a big sign that said it's a wonderful life. And you know, there wasn't anything that said she wasn't that. And then to hear somebody talking about a real reason why all of a sudden this could happen. That was really impactful.
Dingbat juror Paula Devin knew Lindsay Clancy was a good mother, voted to acquit because she had an "It's a Wonderful Life" sign on her house pic.twitter.com/m9jKYaYTeM
— Thomas Paine Reloaded™ (@BenBartee) September 14, 2026
*“Everywhere you looked, there was just love” — including, presumably, on the floor of the basement where Patrick Clancy discovered his children lifeless, tinted blue, with bruises on their necks from the exercise bands that their own mother used to snuff their lives out.
Love everywhere.
Related: VIDEO: Rosie O’Donnell Convenes Epstein ‘Survivors’ for Feminist Singalong
I looked into it, and apparently the term “altruistic filicide” actually exists in clinical literature, coined by, of course, a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Phillip Resnick, in the heady liberatory days of the '60s.
Via Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence (emphasis added):
Altruistic filicide refers to the murder of a child by their parent(s) or parental figure(s) of which the perpetrator views the killing as in the best interest of the child…
Although children represent a minority of homicide victims, child homicide is predominantly an intrafamilial phenomenon. A significant proportion of child victims have been killed by their parents or legal guardians. The term filicide refers to the act of a parent or parental figure killing their child(ren) under the age of eighteen. This term encompasses two subcategories based on the child’s age at the time of the offense: neonaticide and infanticide.
The problem with the “altruistic filicide” defense, aside from the absurdity of the concept on its face, is that, by this lady’s own admission, she saw no evidence that the children were in any danger.
There was “love everywhere,” as she described the situation.
Lindsay herself never expressed to anyone that she believed her children were in any danger.
She never offered any rationale for what it was that she believed she might have been protecting her children from.
But it sounds really great as grounds for acquittal — very clinical, very precise, very official.
