In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in Clear Lake, Texas, during a psychotic episode. In the months that followed, strangers decided her husband must have known. Must have been involved. Must have done something to her first.
Twenty-five years later, Rusty Yates is watching the same thing happen to Patrick Clancy, and he went on television this week to say it is baseless.
What Rusty Yates said
Speaking with Chris Cuomo on NewsNation’s “Cuomo Crime Time,” Yates was asked directly whether anything about the Lindsay Clancy case gave him misgivings about Patrick Clancy’s role, whether he suspected Patrick knew about or was somehow involved in the deaths of the three children.
“No. No, not at all.”
Then he explained why the question itself is familiar. After his own family’s tragedy, a stranger emailed him with an accusation invented from nothing.
“My husband beat me and I know you beat her, too. Which is completely false. But the fact that drove her to actually send me an email and conclude that must be the case in our case, that’s crazy.”
His diagnosis of why people do this is more generous than the behavior deserves. People want explanations, he said, and they build them out of whatever limited experience they have, without recognizing how limited it is. What has changed since 2001, in his telling, is the machinery around that impulse. It has gone downhill, driven by sensationalism chasing viewers and clicks.
The advice
Cuomo asked what he would tell Patrick Clancy. Yates did not offer anything about the trial or the verdict. He talked about survival.
“Finding people, like trying to surround yourself with people who are more understanding and more supportive. You’re not going to please everybody. There’s always going to be crazy people, and you just have to live your life as best you can surrounded by people who are supportive.”
It is worth noting what Yates has consistently done in the years since his own case. He has publicly described Andrea’s actions as the product of illness rather than character, and when Lindsay Clancy was first charged in 2023, he told interviewers he did not believe she belonged in prison. He has said Patrick Clancy is living his life of twenty-five years ago.
Why Patrick Clancy became a target
Patrick Clancy testified for the prosecution over two days in late July. The jury heard roughly six minutes of his 911 call. He described returning from picking up takeout and a prescription to find a locked bedroom door, blood, an open window, his wife outside with wounds saying she had tried to kill herself, and his three children in the basement. He performed CPR.
He also testified that his wife had been having one of her better days, and that no one had warned him against leaving the children with her. Under cross-examination he agreed she had been a devoted mother, severely sleep-deprived and anxious.
Online, none of that has stopped a persistent theory that he must have known. The theories intensified during trial as digital forensics testimony about the family’s devices was picked apart by people who had not heard the rest of the evidence. Earlier in the trial, an expert walked jurors through Apple Watch and stairway data specifically to address claims circulating online.
What Yates is describing is not new to true-crime coverage. It is the particular cruelty of a case where the person who lost the most is also the most convenient character for anyone who needs the story to make more sense than it does.
The comparison the trial cannot escape
The Yates parallel runs through this case at every level, and not only in public conversation. Dr. Phillip Resnick, the forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Andrea Yates, examined Lindsay Clancy and testified for her defense that she suffered postpartum psychosis with command hallucinations and was not criminally responsible.
There is one difference that matters legally. Andrea Yates was convicted at her first trial. That conviction was overturned on appeal because of false testimony from a prosecution expert, and at her second trial in 2006 a different jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. She has been in state psychiatric custody since. Two juries, nearly the same evidence, opposite verdicts. It is the strongest argument available against anyone confident they know what twelve people in Plymouth County will do.
Where the trial stands
Dr. Gregory Saathoff, the FBI forensic psychiatrist who is the Commonwealth’s final witness, resumes Wednesday morning. Closing arguments are expected Thursday, followed by Judge William Sullivan’s instructions and deliberations.
More coverage: the FBI expert’s testimony, what all six experts agree and disagree on, the New York Times essay arguing for mercy, what each side will argue in closings, and the trial timeline.
Questions readers are asking
Who is Rusty Yates?
The ex-husband of Andrea Yates, who drowned their five children in Texas in 2001 during a psychotic episode. He has spoken publicly for years about postpartum psychosis and about the treatment of families in these cases.
Does Rusty Yates think Patrick Clancy was involved?
No. Asked directly on NewsNation whether anything gave him misgivings about Patrick Clancy’s role, he answered, “No. No, not at all.”
What happened to Andrea Yates?
She was convicted at her first trial in 2002. That verdict was overturned on appeal, and at a second trial in 2006 a jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. She has remained in state psychiatric custody since.
Is Patrick Clancy still married to Lindsay Clancy?
No. They are divorced. He testified for the prosecution over two days in July.
Did the same expert work on both cases?
Yes. Dr. Phillip Resnick, the forensic psychiatrist involved in the Andrea Yates case, examined Lindsay Clancy and testified for her defense that she was not criminally responsible.