While 12 jurors will decide Lindsay Clancy’s fate, people outside the courtroom have been reaching their own conclusions as her triple murder trial draws worldwide attention and fuels a growing phenomenon researchers call “forensic fandom.”
Clancy is accused of murdering her three children. Her attorney admits she killed them, but says she shouldn’t be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
From pink-clad supporters showing up outside the courthouse to the rising celebrity of defense attorney Kevin Reddington, the more than 20 days of livestreamed testimony have generated intense interest online.
Boston University media science professor Kathryn Coduto, who researches true crime and social media, said the circumstances of the case make it particularly compelling to audiences.
“It’s not just that a woman did something, but she killed her kids. And so I think that has really drawn people in because it’s very uncomfortable,” Coduto said.
Coduto said true crime already has an enormous audience, but the Clancy case differs from many stories in the genre because a mother is at the center of the case, leaving many people trying to make sense of what happened.
That interest is playing out across social media, where users have posted reactions, commentary, theories and even what some claim is new evidence.
Coduto describes the phenomenon as “forensic fandom.” The concept was originally seen with fictional TV shows like “Lost,” But she adds it has increasingly carried over into true crime, with people believing they may spot clues or evidence that others have missed
“Forensic fandom in a true crime sense, people are now not just trying to figure out what’s happening in a fictional program, they think that they can put pieces together in real life,” Coduto said.
“In my own research, I have asked people why they follow true crime stories, what they get from it, and what they often say is that they want to be participants. They feel like they might be able to find clues that other people have missed, or they want to help find justice maybe that they feel like hasn’t been brought yet,” Coduto added.
Online attention can also create problems. Coduto said forensic fandom content can make it difficult for people to distinguish what is real from speculation. She said social media algorithms can further amplify content surrounding a high-profile case, regardless of whether that content is accurate.
There can also be an incentive for people to join the conversation simply because of the attention a viral video can bring.
Though the Clancy case presents another complication for online sleuths, it is not a “whodunit.”
Jurors are instead being asked to determine Clancy’s mental state when she strangled her three children. Coduto said some conspiracy theories circulating treat the case as though someone else could be responsible, even though that is not what is being argued in court.
“People want an alternative explanation. They want there to be a cleaner, neater way for this to have happened, and ultimately that’s just not going to happen because no matter how you put the story together, there are three children who are dead,” Coduto said.
Despite the enormous amount of content surrounding the trial, the jurors deciding Clancy’s fate are sworn to not watch or read coverage of the case. Their decision must instead be based solely on the evidence and testimony presented in court.
