Lindsay Clancy was let down

True: The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a doubt that she wasnt (not on the defence to prove that she was)
I dont think the prosecution proved she wasnt,so i have doubt.
If 1 person on the jury has doubt the jury will be hung/mistrial

She attended the A+E at the local hospital and they recommended she be committed but she and her husband didnt want that/didnt feel it was needed so she wasnt admitted there.

She was then eventually admitted for that one stay thats on record but was discharged after saying she felt better, she wanted to be at home and I think there was a birthday coming up for one of the kids.

Its not quite right to say she was repeatedly turned away or was just chucked out, and not quite right to say she was repeatedly offered inpatient care either.

Agree. It's a difficult situation since the social and internal pressures are so great on parents to parent, or at least mothers to mother. You're meant to be caring for your kids... if you're not doing that and someone else has to do it instead, you're failing. Not the same thing, but there are numerous posts on here by mothers struggling with the practicalities and emotions involved in leaving their babies/children for even a day, let alone a long term stay in hospital.

LC's diary entries describe her guilt and despair at 'failing' at parenting. I imagine that was made worse for her by being away from her children and she thought she just had to get home and get on with things. I imagine there was a bit of family pressure this way as well... I'm not suggesting that they were unsupportive but it puts a lot of pressure on the other parent and wider family if the main caregiver is absent so it's likely that there was subtle pressure at least on her to appear to be 'coping' and get back to parenting. It's not enough to say 'she was offered help and didn't take it'. You could say that about many people who forgo or postpone essential medical treatment because of caring responsibilities.

I have to question why she’s even going through a trial to defend herself. Even if she didn’t mean to murder her three children, she still did and she should want to be punished for it. Whatever the circumstances.

I have. There is nothing that can mitigate what happened.

You really want people thinking women are incapable of controlling their emotions and behaviours because of hormones again?

If you disagree that "a disease or defect " ie :psychosis is a defence in law regarding criminal responsibility you will have to change the law.

I don’t think she was in psychosis

I think she will be punished no matter what the jurys decision.

I don’t understand why she wanted a trial. She could have pleaded guilty

I can understand you thoughts on this but disagree because we have to decide "beyond a doubt" rather than "probably".
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LC wasnt sufferrng a disease or defect ie:psychosis at the time of the killings that rendered her not criminally responsible, I don think they did that,i have doubt. I think the jury reflect society and our differing opinions.
I agree regarding the male comparison having differences,although some male cases are mitigated by psychosis.

I hadn't appreciated that Massachusetts has atypical laws on the burden of proof surrounding the "insanity" defence. In the context of it's laws, I do agree your assessment. Would be different in the UK or most other US states, but those ain't the rules for this case.

It's really shocking to see other womem tearing her down like she's some sort of serial killer that took delight in what happened.

Poor woman was failed. I feel so sorry for her. With the right support and help, this wouldn't have happened.

She was so concerned about being a good mum - by everyone's accounts, she was very devoted to her kids. She loved them so much. That's the real, genuine her.

Is it somewhat unusual add to that the need for a unanimous verdict means its likely to be a hung jury/mistrial. Its a tragic case and i understand why people are passionate and conflicted.

I don’t think you’d be so empathetic to a man.

It depends how you view justice and what you define it as. Is it justice to plead guilty to a crime you didn’t commit? Is it justice to be punished as if you committed a crime when you didn’t?

She / her defense, do not believe that she’s guilty of murder, hence not pleading it. Her defense was advocating for a stipulation that she killed her children but was not criminally responsible due to severely impaired mental state. This was refused, hence the trial.

'She had a history of psichotic outbreaks'

Was she ever diagnosed with ppp? Her alleged psychosis was atypical/fake as many experts have said. There wasn't any witnessed psychotic episodes.

I don't dispute she had mh issues but so do many people. Many people are up to their eyeballs on meds for depression and anxiety, meds to make them sleep etc. The point is they don't kill their children. Well, depressed family annihilators do.

No one is tearing her down and taking delight in what happened. You seem to be another one, like the OP who is making things up about what people are saying

No one has said she wasnt ill. That is not the same as saying she was not responsible for what happened. Its very likely that it affected her choices. But again its not the same as saying she was not responsble for it. The jury will decide if they do feel she wasnt responsible. Other than that, her illness is a mitigating factor and no more.

Three children lost their lives, yet so much focus on her.

It is what many people call someone who kills their children.

You are so desperate to excuse what she did, blame it all on 'failings by hcps'.

Lots of people have mh issues. They don't kill their dc, unless it's a planned annihilation of course.

Men don't get let off because theyre allegedly 'psychotic'.

No, it couldn't happen to any one of us who have given birth.