OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Patrick Clancy Speaks Out After Wife's Mistrial in Child Deaths

7 sources · updated 2026-09-18
Left 25% Center 75% Right 0%
2 left · 6 center · 0 right

What happened

Patrick Clancy, father of three children killed in 2023, gave his first public comments since his ex-wife Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial ended in a mistrial, in a 60 Minutes interview that aired September 20. Lindsay Clancy was charged with killing 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan; her defense argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis. The jury deadlocked after a lone holdout would not join a finding that she was not criminally responsible, producing a mistrial; prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry the case. Clancy, joined by his wife Dr. Rachel Danis, spoke with correspondent Ross Douthat about his grief and about online claims that he was involved in the deaths.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 8 articles

1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 3 hours later. Danis denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Patrick Clancy
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Danis (NewsNation, Sep 18, 15:24 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 17, 13:53 UTC by NewsNation, with no named source. First named source 3 hours later, from The Hill.
Not counted 5
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK. Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days; OAN reported it on 2026-09-05.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage is the only partisan account of Patrick Clancy's 60 Minutes interview: it says he leans on his children for support, and it uniquely ties online suspicion of him to his own testimony. The Hill reports that testimony led to "online speculation and conspiracies" that he had a role in the deaths. Those theories appear in CBS News as baseless claims that flooded social media after the trial, with no link to his testimony. Missing from that write-up is the postpartum psychosis defense that CBS News reports as the core of Lindsay Clancy's case. Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so a reader there misses both the grief interview and the claim that Clancy's own testimony invited the theories. What did Patrick Clancy actually say on the stand that produced theories he took part in the killings?
Bottom line

Skip right-leaning newsrooms and you never hear that Patrick Clancy went on 60 Minutes. Read only The Hill and you hear that his testimony put him in the frame for his children's deaths.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Dr. Rachel Danis joined Patrick Clancy for the 60 Minutes interview individual casein CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Prosecutors have yet to announce whether they will seek a retrial official statementin CBS News · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
CBS News, The Hill, and NewsNation report that Clancy sat down with 60 Minutes weeks after the mistrial and quote him saying he still talks to his children “all the time,” asking them for help as a way to stay connected. Covering outlets describe social-media theories that he had a role in the deaths as baseless conspiracy theories that spread during and after the trial, and they note that his marriage to fertility doctor Rachel Danis drew public attention and that she appeared on camera. The reports present the segment as Clancy speaking in his own words about grief, mental health, and the aftermath of the trial.
Our Take (balanced)
The underlying case facts—the 2023 deaths of the three children, the charges against Lindsay Clancy, the postpartum-psychosis insanity defense, and the mistrial—are established by court proceedings. Clancy’s remarks about grief and talking to his children are first-person interview statements, not new documentary evidence. Allegations that he was involved in the deaths remain unproven online claims; covering outlets call them baseless and cite no charging documents or trial evidence against him. No right-leaning outlet has reported this interview. Watch for a prosecutorial decision on retrial, the full broadcast, and any statement from the district attorney.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.