Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

30 days only

Lindsay Clancy case: was it evil, or severe mental illness?

937 replies

KellyK2026 · 04/09/2026 16:50

Lindsay Clancy, what do we all think? Pure evil or mentally ill?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 12:51

The gofundme is for her parents I think to help them recover the cost of visiting and relocating.

mulberrymilk · Yesterday 12:31

MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 11:13

I doubt she will pay, they are already seeking damages and peraps the bad publicity will result in those who failed her children paying all costs.

There is a public fundraiser that has already raised 1.2 million US dollars.

"Those who failed her children"... apparently anyone is to blame, but her.

MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 12:25

TooOrangey · Yesterday 12:23

I agree. She needs to be in a secure psychiatric facility, not a prison.

If she's found guilty she will be a vulnerable prisoner, if she's in hospital she may be safer, whatever the decision her life is in ruins and she must feel tormented.

TooOrangey · Yesterday 12:23

EasternStandard · Yesterday 12:07

I feel too much for the dc and their emotions for this. But whatever the jury decide then so be it, she may be in a MH facility instead of prison.

I agree. She needs to be in a secure psychiatric facility, not a prison.

SeeingClearlyNow · Yesterday 12:21

Newbizmum · Yesterday 11:57

She deserves to be put down.

Nothing excuses what she did.

It is obvious that you are an idiot.

BruachAbhann · Yesterday 12:19

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 10:44

It seems to me that what you’re saying in this reply is that you haven’t seen conclusive evidence that LC was in psychosis but that MA law does not require this proof, it requires the prosecution to show she was not in psychosis.

I’m aware this is your understanding of MA law. My reading suggests it is somewhat more nuanced than that as I have posted previously but that aside, this thread is not about whether LC will end up in prison or not or predicting the outcome of the case. It is about what we believe happened and why. To me, the truth of whether or not she was in a psychotic state when she murdered her children IS important, whether the technicalities of MA law deem it be or not.

'It seems to me that what you’re saying in this reply is that you haven’t seen conclusive evidence that LC was in psychosis but that MA law does not require this proof, it requires the prosecution to show she was not in psychosis.'

How could they prove that though, how can you prove a negative?
I think the fact that she was apparently only psychotic for the period of time she killed her kids is handy for her! If that was accepted as a get out clause for killing her kids (by being found NGRI), it sets a very dangerous precedent for all future cases. What is to stop anyone claiming that they were psychotic during the crime they committed.

As I've said before upthread and I know you have also @CloverAndGrass, the proof of her insanity seems to be the committing of the crime. It's a circular argument to say that only someone insane would commit such a crime, therefore she has to be guilty by reason of insanity. By that argument, the proof of her innocence is the committing of the crime!

EasternStandard · Yesterday 12:07

TooOrangey · Yesterday 12:03

How hateful and dehumanising. Your language is cruel and unnecessary.

We should recognise her humanity and the seriousness of her psychiatric illness. It loathsome to reduce an extraordinarily complicated psychiatric situation to ‘she was evil’.

She deserves compassion. She’s already in hell.

I feel too much for the dc and their emotions for this. But whatever the jury decide then so be it, she may be in a MH facility instead of prison.

TooOrangey · Yesterday 12:03

Newbizmum · Yesterday 11:57

She deserves to be put down.

Nothing excuses what she did.

How hateful and dehumanising. Your language is cruel and unnecessary.

We should recognise her humanity and the seriousness of her psychiatric illness. It loathsome to reduce an extraordinarily complicated psychiatric situation to ‘she was evil’.

She deserves compassion. She’s already in hell.

Newbizmum · Yesterday 11:57

She deserves to be put down.

Nothing excuses what she did.

Aluna · Yesterday 11:31

SeeingClearlyNow · Yesterday 11:02

But in this country it is available at no cost at the point of entry to a few mothers. The Mother and Baby unit at the Bethlehem in SE London has only 13 beds. Thats a facility potentially saving the lives of 13 mothers and their babies at any one time no matter what the cost. It’s not enough of
course.

My point was really that the ‘they could afford it’ argument is spurious. We base it on our UK experience. In the US it is all about cost. This is prioritised over the best treatment option.

Edited

Sure, I was just making the point that private healthcare anywhere is expensive.

The issue in the US is that they don’t have NHS system which is free at the point of access and available to all (in theory).

MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 11:13

Aluna · Yesterday 10:56

I’m sorry to hear that.💐

Private inpatient care anywhere is astronomically expensive.

I doubt she will pay, they are already seeking damages and peraps the bad publicity will result in those who failed her children paying all costs.

SeeingClearlyNow · Yesterday 11:02

Aluna · Yesterday 10:56

I’m sorry to hear that.💐

Private inpatient care anywhere is astronomically expensive.

But in this country it is available at no cost at the point of entry to a few mothers. The Mother and Baby unit at the Bethlehem in SE London has only 13 beds. Thats a facility potentially saving the lives of 13 mothers and their babies at any one time no matter what the cost. It’s not enough of
course.

My point was really that the ‘they could afford it’ argument is spurious. We base it on our UK experience. In the US it is all about cost. This is prioritised over the best treatment option.

EvieBB · Yesterday 11:02

BruachAbhann · Yesterday 10:56

Isn't that like saying anyone who commits a heinous crime is mentally ill? If you're suggesting she should be excused on this basis then so should every other murderer. Charles Manson for example- he was obviously a nut job.

I dint think anyone can be excused... obviously society needs protecting from nut jobs but, yes, they are mentally insane (temporarily or otherwise)

Aluna · Yesterday 10:56

SeeingClearlyNow · Yesterday 10:49

I was in a locked ward in the US for five days 30 years ago. Only ‘basic’ psychiatric treatment and the bill was £10,000. One of the other inmates was
paying for ECT because it was cheaper and meant they could be in and out quickly.

Choosing to fry your brain because it is the cheapest option. The thought of it still fills me
with horror.

Even the well off in the US make medical decisions based on cost so the ‘they could afford it’ argument just doesn’t sustain.

Money is also the reason why there are not more of the desperately needed and absolutely amazing mother and baby units mentioned upthread in the uk.

I’m sorry to hear that.💐

Private inpatient care anywhere is astronomically expensive.

BruachAbhann · Yesterday 10:56

EvieBB · Yesterday 02:48

Seriously though, anyone who does something as horrific as this(whether pre-planned or not) has got to be mentally ill. No sane person would ever do this - whether planned or not.

Isn't that like saying anyone who commits a heinous crime is mentally ill? If you're suggesting she should be excused on this basis then so should every other murderer. Charles Manson for example- he was obviously a nut job.

Aluna · Yesterday 10:55

It’s impossible to speculate how long she might be detained in a secure psychiatric hospital. The biggest danger she is likely to pose is to herself, although her means will be hampered by paralysis.

One case I know of in the U.K. a mother killed three kids and then tried to kill herself but failed, she was found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and sent to a secure psychiatric hospital where she later killed herself.

SeeingClearlyNow · Yesterday 10:49

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 11:02

They were a wealthy family, able to afford inpatient treatment for her at McLean Hospital, plus all the other doctors, psychiatrists, and therapists she saw.

I was in a locked ward in the US for five days 30 years ago. Only ‘basic’ psychiatric treatment and the bill was £10,000. One of the other inmates was
paying for ECT because it was cheaper and meant they could be in and out quickly.

Choosing to fry your brain because it is the cheapest option. The thought of it still fills me
with horror.

Even the well off in the US make medical decisions based on cost so the ‘they could afford it’ argument just doesn’t sustain.

Money is also the reason why there are not more of the desperately needed and absolutely amazing mother and baby units mentioned upthread in the uk.

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 10:49

MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 10:32

I guess it depends on the crime, if there mental condition is treatable, if they still pose a risk to themselves or others or if they can be housed a a less secure environment, either way she'll need long term care and medical supervision, being paralysed she can't, thankfully, live on her own in society ever again.

I think we’re agreeing that the claim that being detained in psychiatric hospital after killing someone is a life sentence is untrue. I think it unlikely LC will be detained for many years if this is the case outcome.

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 10:44

KellyK2026 · Yesterday 10:14

But this is what I’m saying, I’m Massachusetts Law the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LC wasn’t experiencing psychosis as the defence has argued. So far they’ve haven’t done that. They are unable to do that. If the care LC was well organised, the relevant tests were conducted and she was being treated by specialists in postpartum depression/psychosis and they all said that she wasn’t experiencing psychosis then you might have an argument. If anything the case has shown just how poor mental health care is for postpartum women in the US.

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings. This can be used to show that that was perhaps trying to make sense of what she was experiencing.

It seems to me that what you’re saying in this reply is that you haven’t seen conclusive evidence that LC was in psychosis but that MA law does not require this proof, it requires the prosecution to show she was not in psychosis.

I’m aware this is your understanding of MA law. My reading suggests it is somewhat more nuanced than that as I have posted previously but that aside, this thread is not about whether LC will end up in prison or not or predicting the outcome of the case. It is about what we believe happened and why. To me, the truth of whether or not she was in a psychotic state when she murdered her children IS important, whether the technicalities of MA law deem it be or not.

mulberrymilk · Yesterday 10:41

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings.

You could read that in many ways.

She also searched to see if sociopathy could be cured, and wrote in her diary how much she hated her three year old son, Dawson.

MissMoneyFairy · Yesterday 10:32

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 09:37

People keep saying that she will be detained for life either way but I don’t think this is correct. Many killers who are detained in psychiatric hospital are released at some point, are they not?

Edited

I guess it depends on the crime, if there mental condition is treatable, if they still pose a risk to themselves or others or if they can be housed a a less secure environment, either way she'll need long term care and medical supervision, being paralysed she can't, thankfully, live on her own in society ever again.

KellyK2026 · Yesterday 10:17

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 10:11

Fair point, who knows how I would react in such extreme circumstances.

(I am not convinced by the psychotic episode claim though)

I suggest you watch the testimony of the doctor treating her immediately after the fall. She was intubated so couldn’t talk and in a tremendous amount of pain. She communicated via writing in which, one of the questions she asked, was ‘how is my family’. But as the doctor said, nobody in that state (and she was sedated) would be in the right frame of mind.

OP posts:
EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:16

KellyK2026 · Yesterday 10:14

But this is what I’m saying, I’m Massachusetts Law the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LC wasn’t experiencing psychosis as the defence has argued. So far they’ve haven’t done that. They are unable to do that. If the care LC was well organised, the relevant tests were conducted and she was being treated by specialists in postpartum depression/psychosis and they all said that she wasn’t experiencing psychosis then you might have an argument. If anything the case has shown just how poor mental health care is for postpartum women in the US.

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings. This can be used to show that that was perhaps trying to make sense of what she was experiencing.

It was close to NGRI, perhaps the re-trial will be conclusive.

Aluna · Yesterday 10:15

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:08

So why post as you did? It’s your wording posters are responding to.

I was asked to comment on media coverage so I did. A couple posters wanted to bicker about it which I’m not interested in.

KellyK2026 · Yesterday 10:14

CloverAndGrass · Yesterday 10:08

This may be evidence of inadequate treatment and poor diagnosis but it isn’t evidence that LC was in psychosis at the time she murdered her children. I’m not trying to prove she wasn’t in psychosis, I am asking what is the evidence that she was.

But this is what I’m saying, I’m Massachusetts Law the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LC wasn’t experiencing psychosis as the defence has argued. So far they’ve haven’t done that. They are unable to do that. If the care LC was well organised, the relevant tests were conducted and she was being treated by specialists in postpartum depression/psychosis and they all said that she wasn’t experiencing psychosis then you might have an argument. If anything the case has shown just how poor mental health care is for postpartum women in the US.

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings. This can be used to show that that was perhaps trying to make sense of what she was experiencing.

OP posts: