Lindsay Clancy was let down

Pp is terrifying.

Ive posted about it a few times over the years. I had it after the birth of my son.
I thought he'd died during birth and been replaced by a demon.

You have no idea how it feels if you've not gone through it.

If she actually had it then she was in no way responsible for her actions.

I really don't think the "if she were a man" comments, comparing it to instances of family annihilation by a man, are helpful.

Those cases are almost always marked by coercive control and narcissim, and often with vindictive motivation.

It's obvious - inclusing to the prosecution - that it is not the case, here.

LC was clearly in a mental health crisis, it's just a question of whether she remained of sufficiently sound mind that she is criminally culpable.

FWIW, I believe that she was culpable, and I do not believe the "sudden, auditory command hallucination" story, but she was clearly very unwell and not motivated by malice.

Also, in many cases a male perpetrator has also been a perpetrator of domestic abuse/violence, while a female perpetrator has often been a victim of domestic abuse. That doesn't apply to every case, including the LC case, but I would say explains why many people would generally give a female perpetrator the benefit of the doubt in a way they would not to a male perpetrator.

'but she was clearly very unwell and not motivated by malice'

She wasn't clearly anything, I presume that's why there still isn't a verdict.

It doesn't matter if you think mentioning men killing their kids isn't helpful . The fact is that they do and we never see fleeting psychotic episodes as reasons for the horrific killing.

People can be depressed/anxious/suicidal whatever but still do not kill their children in such a cold calculated manner.

It is undisputed that she was very unwell - the prosection agree as much. What is in dispute is whether she remained sufficiently lucid to remain criminally culpable.

I.e. - was she:

(1) experiencing severe anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation, but remained in control of her actions; or

(2) was she suffering from psychosis and lacked control/capacity.

Like you (seemingly), I think it's likely the former and that there should be a conviction.

But I don't think comparing it to the archetypal male anger/malice cases is very helpful, where mental capacity isn't even in question - its usually just an extension of a pattern of abuse and violence.

I can think she's probably guilty and yet not equivalent to someone who killed their kids out of sheer vindictive rage - i.e., most men who commit similar acts.

I'm sorry for your troubles,@hds873banana .

I don't understand what is the matter with people working in mental health. They should have noticed by now that their knowledge is very very preliminary and that they could learn a lot from the people who actually know their patients. Maybe they overcompensate.

Based on the evidence they've been presented with, I think the jury have a very hard job to do in deciding whether LC was of sufficiently sound mind that her actions amount to murder (or a lesser crime like manslaughter in the circumstances).

But one thing that did strike me in reading about this case is that there really isn't space in our society (and I think the US is the same) for mothers to fail. This was a very unwell woman, begging for help, who repeatedly said that she was not ok and who had admitted to her family that she had thoughts of harming her children. At that point, if it was anyone but the mother of the children, wouldn't they be kept away from the children or at least subjected to constant supervision? She was even admitted to a psychiatric hospital at one stage but discharged fairly quickly. Her husband had reason to ask her if she thought the children were unsafe with her. And yet she still seems to have carried a large part of the day to day burden of caring for the children, unsupervised. There was a failure to protect the children by those who knew she was unwell and struggling, and it may have been because they never imagined that she would actually harm the children but part of it may also have been because of how burdensome and inconvenient it is for everyone else when mothers 'fall short', for whatever reason, and others have to pick up the pieces. There is an expectation right from giving birth that postpartum women, even if bleeding, exhausted and mentally fragile, just need to get on with and subordinate their own needs entirely to those of their children, and this is something that it is ok for others to expect of them and it is a moral failing in women who for whatever reason cannot do this.

From the evidence so far, I believe she was suffering from severe mental health issues and was in a psychotic episode and not in control at all.

I don't think she had any rationale, or choice over what happened. It's horrific but I don't think she should be found guilty. I don't think the husband had anything to do with it - except perhaps be totally out of his depth trying to help his very unwell wife.

She had clearly informed her loved ones she had dark thoughts about harming her children for a while, so this is more than "she was just depressed and anxious and one day she just lhad enough", the psicosis had been there for a while. Fact is she had been given medication for schizophrenia to stop the psichotic outbreaks which kinds of debunct your first theory.

And the fact that a large number of people including some on here are categorically saying he is the one that killed the children is the weirdest thing to come out of the trial. She did it, admitted to, I expect dna and fingerprint evidence will prove that.

Her defence is that she wasn't mentally sound. And I believe she wasn't. She like someone said wanted to be the perfect mother, like is presented in almost every American tv show, film, magazine.

Megan, Prince Harry's wife in her tv show,painted the picture of perfect domestic bliss...

Sadly, Lindsay was mentally unable to do that and no one realised how ill she was

@NotAnotherScarf Sadly, Lindsay was mentally unable to do that and no one realised how ill she was.

Maybe they knew but there was not much they could do? Or maybe was afraid of loosing custody of the kids if she
said she heard voices that told her to kill them (social services would have removed those kids) so Lindsey kind of minimized her issues in order to make them look not too bad? just a theory.

What do you mean "debunks my first theory"?

I was responding to a poster who denied that LC was clearly unwell and not acting out of malice, who said that clearly hasn't been decided (hence no verdict).

I'm simply saying that the prosecution and defence both accept she was unwell. Neither allege she was acting in malice (prosecution theory is calculated, altruistic filicide, driven by severe depression, defence is psychotic episode).

And if either had been "debunked" then why ask the jury?

Whether she is incarcerated for punishment or protection (even hers) does not really matter to me.

She has killed 3 people, and has therefore proved herself unsafe to have in society.

You can accept she was in pyschosis and still think she should be detained for the rest of her life.

We can't have people who have killed 3 of society's most vulnerable members free to do so again.

She didnt get help then, now she gets helped to ensure she cant ever do it again.

But she did try and get help.

She was let down, again and again.

Personally I don't want to see her detained for the rest of her life; what she did wasn't her fault. She didn't choose to be so unwell. I'm sure she already lives in hell in herself, knowing what she has done - that's punishment enough without taking her freedom too.

She killed 3 people.

The system may be a mess, she might have sought help, all of that can be true.

But someone who has killed 3 people, for any reason other than self defence/defence of others needs to be kept away from society. She has proven she is not safe.

She can receive help in detention. The nature of that detention can be different depending on what the jury finds. But it is madness to allow a triple killer to walk out the door.

I'd prefer to see her released and supported because I don't think she is a risk to anyone except herself.

As I say, I think living with what she has done is punishment enough.

It's not as though she is some sort of serial killer with a long history of violence - she was very unwell and not getting anywhere near the help she needed.

This was utterly tragic, but it doesn't benefit anyone to have her incarcerated.

She strangled three small children, one after the other. It's a little bizarre to me that people are talking about her as though she's totally helpless and innocent. I don't think she should be released, whether she goes to prison or some sort of facility will be determined.

The alleged psychotic episode is the issue though as many experts disagree with her presentation and how the voices strangely stopped immediately after the killings.

Lots of people have mental health issues. When men or women kill innocent children though they should be held accountable.

I hope she's locked up for the rest of her life in a secure facility.

Simple it's because she's a woman and they don't want to believe a woman would hurt her kids on purpose it would be a completely different thread if it were a man on trial

I understand what you are saying about many people not understanding what goes on in someone elses head (and theres an irony in that when discussing this awfully sad case) I dont think your hypothetical "motive" of" im not going to be here.i dont want my children to be here here" is as likely as a psychotic episode.ALthough, this trial isnt about wether LC killed her children or what her motive was its about wether she lacked criminal responsiblilty in law in the moment of killing her children beyond a doubt. I don think the prosecution did that, im left with doubt and i imagine some of the jury may be too . If 1 person on the jury has doubt it will be a hung jury/mistrial.

She repeatedly refused in-patient treatment. She lied to her doctors. She didn't follow the treatment plans.

She apparently began to improve once she was treated for bipolar 2, but when that was suggested to her she was adamant she didn't have it and as far as I'm aware she still maintains she doesn't have it.

She was depressed, absolutely. But she decided to kill herself and take her children with her. Standard annihilator.

Yes I think there is a high likelihood of someone on the jury finding some doubt.

She had a history of psichotic outbreaks and she was taking medication for it (amongst benzos of all sorts to calm her anxiety), she had warned loved ones about "wanting to hurt her kids". My question is: was she or was she not going through an episode when she killed her kids? that's the jurys dilema.

Can you link evidence that she refused inpatient treatment repeatedly? I’ve only seen an occasion where she was turned away for inpatient care because she didn’t meet the criteria, not that she was offered several times but refused.