The horrifying death of an Illinois toddler now carries a deeply disturbing connection to the Lindsay Clancy murder case.

Prosecutors say Corie Walsh killed her two-year-old son, Barrett, after showing an intense interest in the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children.

Walsh allegedly killed Barrett by hanging him with a ligature, a method chillingly similar to the exercise bands Clancy used on her children.

The resemblance is difficult to dismiss, especially given what witnesses revealed about Walsh's behavior before the boy died.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Investigators say Walsh called Barrett a “devil” and described him as the Antichrist.

She allegedly told authorities that she believed she had to kill her little boy, while her three other children survived the horror inside the home.

A seventeen-year-old called 911 and was performing CPR when officers arrived at the Frankfort residence.

Police then discovered Walsh attempting to harm herself, according to reports about the investigation.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

WATCH:

The court proffer stated that Walsh was found fully dressed inside a bathtub in the master bedroom, surrounded by bloody water.

A neighbor was pressing a towel against Walsh's inner thigh after reportedly taking a knife from her hand and throwing it into a sink.

Walsh's husband was outside Illinois when the killing occurred and returned home Tuesday evening.

Prosecutors subsequently charged Walsh with three counts of first degree murder in connection with Barrett's death.

Witnesses told prosecutors that Walsh had become intensely interested in the Clancy proceedings.

That detail turns an already monstrous case into a broader warning about the dangerous glorification surrounding mothers accused of killing their own children.

On the day Barrett died, the Clancy jury was deliberating.

Walsh reportedly sent repeated messages about Clancy in a group text conversation only hours before a neighbor discovered the murdered toddler.

Clancy confessed to strangling her three children, all of whom were five years old or younger.

Her lawyer nevertheless called her “wonderful,” a description that captures the bizarre public relations campaign to transform an admitted child killer into a sympathetic cultural figure.

Clancy said she killed three year old Dawson first because she disliked him more than her other children.

“Go to God,” she told the child while choking him, according to the account of her confession.

Earlier that morning, Patrick Clancy proudly sent Lindsay a photograph showing that Dawson had dressed himself for the first time.

Lindsay answered with a photograph of their oldest child, Cora, at a doctor's appointment, appearing engaged with the ordinary routines of family life.

Patrick later left to pick up food at Lindsay's request after holding Callan, kissing Cora, and saying goodbye to Dawson.

When he returned, he found that Lindsay had jumped from a window and then discovered his children dead while speaking with a 911 dispatcher.

“My little boy, my buddy!” the devastated father cried when he identified Dawson.

He then shouted, “Oh my God, she killed the kids!” as the full nightmare inside his home became clear.

Yet Clancy's ideological defenders have worked relentlessly to redirect blame toward Patrick while portraying Lindsay as both victim and heroine.

Some activists appear more interested in protecting a preferred feminist narrative than confronting the deliberate killing of three defenseless children.

Walsh's alleged fixation does not by itself prove that Clancy directly inspired Barrett's killing.

Still, the timing, the repeated messages, the similar method, and the reported obsession give substantial weight to concerns about copycat violence fueled by reckless public glorification.

The deeper cultural problem rests on several poisonous ideas: that mental illness erases personal responsibility, that women must always be treated as innocent when a man is available to blame, and that inconvenient children can be discarded.

Barrett deserved protection, not excuses shaped by a movement determined to rationalize the unthinkable.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.