Letters to the Editor | Oct. 30, 2026
Inquirer readers on the Lindsay Clancy murder trial and protecting the polls on Election Day.
Easing the pain
I have not stopped thinking about Lindsay Clancy, who acknowledged killing her children before she attempted to kill herself. I have not been involved in this case or reviewed any professional records. However, as a psychotherapist, I have worked with women who shared Clancy’s hellish pain and confusion. Women driven to kill themselves feel so worthless they believe all whom they love will have better lives without them. In my experience, when they also attempt to kill their children, they seek heaven where their little ones can finally be safe in their care. I longed for the opportunity to work with this population before such horrific acts could take place, and found it in a most unlikely way: through the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.
Early in our professional lives, I had the privilege of getting to know Lynne Abraham, and we became trusting friends. As a determined district attorney, she understood this city well and cared deeply for Philadelphians’ well-being, especially our children. During the years she was our DA, carefully selected cases involving first offenders, in which there were no fatalities, were referred to me for (pro bono) intensive therapy rather than incarceration. Abraham’s office also publicly supported the birth of the Sabbath of Domestic Peace Coalition, which identified clergy as an essential missing link in addressing domestic violence, stressing that prayer alone cannot change a violent partner, and that couples facing this distress should never be seen together for counseling.
There are times when I see former clients out and about with their families, enjoying their lives, possibly because Abraham understood the difference between a hardened criminal act and a cry for help.
SaraKay Smullens, Philadelphia
Poll observers
In the 1960s, the federal government sent observers to the Deep South, particularly Alabama and Mississippi, during the Civil Rights Movement. My husband, a federal employee of the Office of Personnel Management, was one of them.
These people went to rural areas in pairs to ensure fair and open elections. They were not to interact or interfere, just be there.
Needless to say, they were not popular, and when they went into town for a meal, they stood out in their suits and were met with suspicion and hostility. At the polls, they were protected by the local sheriff, who one evening had to stand on the porch and ward off a truckload of rednecks shooting up into the air. He knew them all and simply told them to move on and go home, which they did.
Today, we face similar problems, but it’s the federal government that is trying to interfere, not the people. Time after time, it has been proven that our elections are fair and above board. We should not have to have hordes of observers of either party at the polls to protect the integrity of the vote. It is already ensured.
Carol N. Wright, Malvern
About letters to the editor
Letters feature a reader’s written opinion and are submitted in response to an article in The Inquirer or another topical issue. Submissions should be sent to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include the writer’s home address and day and evening phone number. Letters are published in the Inquirer six days a week on the print opinion pages and online.
