Page 20 | Lindsay Clancy case: was it evil, or severe mental illness?

KellyK2026 · 2026-09-04T15:50:08+00:00

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

Tomselleckhaskindeyes · 05/09/2026 15:46

Working with lots of paranoid schizophrenics over the years their delusions make sense to them. I work with a lady who will tell you that the police are out to get her and they are following her because she complained years ago.

There is absolutely no way that i could persuade her differently when she was ill. She was sectioned in the end. This is what should have happened to this lady.

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 15:46

EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 13:23

If the defence thought they had a chance with what you’re saying on the thread they would have gone with it.

Show quote history

If the defence even hinted that they weren't in a happy marriage, tho, that give motive to LC, so it's in their interest to cast doubt on certain aspects, but not to highlight things that would give her motive.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:43

MissMoneyFairy · 05/09/2026 15:40

It's the poor kids who were let down, if the medical and social professionals knew she was a risk at harming them then they should not have been allowed to be with her without supervision or they should have been removed from her care. Her family tried to get her help, she tried to get help but clearly she was not safe to be left alone with the children and they suffered the ultimate price for all the failings.

Show quote history

I think it definitely was the failure of the entire system. Each part didn’t work as it should and it had devastating consequences. It happens all too often.

OP posts:

CanterThroughChaos · 05/09/2026 15:42

Post partum psychosis - she was living in a different reality

MissMoneyFairy · 05/09/2026 15:40

CatMouseandmaybeDog · 04/09/2026 18:08

I don’t think she was let down by doctors, she had access to a lot of medical professionals and medication. I was trying to imagine the same scenario with the NHS, having to fill in a econsult then having to wait up to 48h for a phone call that might or might not offer you a face-to-face consultation…

It's the poor kids who were let down, if the medical and social professionals knew she was a risk at harming them then they should not have been allowed to be with her without supervision or they should have been removed from her care. Her family tried to get her help, she tried to get help but clearly she was not safe to be left alone with the children and they suffered the ultimate price for all the failings.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:38

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:33

I mean, from the prosecution's closing address -

"There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself," said Assistant District Attorney, Jennifer Sprague.

Then that’s honestly them agreeing with the defence. I mean there is really only one way this trial could go and I think that’s why the defence lawyer wanted the one juror thrown out based on the fact that they weren’t abiding by the law of the state. I’m not a LC supporter, but I do acknowledge the legalities behind it.

OP posts:

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:35

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:26

The defence's case rests on her committing the murders while under "comand hallucinations" due to psychosis.

The prosecution's case rests on her suffering severe depression, without psychosis, as evidenced by the clarity of her pre-planning, and all the treating doctors having encountered no evidence of psychosis at any time prior.

Show quote history

It doesn’t just rest on that. That’s why they’ve brought out journal entries, family members who have attested to her poor mental health (including that father of the children), her prescriptions, the health professionals who treated her, her medical notes, etc. the defence has put all that forward to show what state she was in when she committed the killings. Again, Under Massachusetts Law the prosecution HAVE to prove that LC wasn’t mentally ill when she carried out the killings. There’s not a separate law for people who are experiencing postpartum psychosis. Any mental health condition, barring anxiety and depression, can be used for basis of diminished responsibility in Massachusetts law. She was diagnosed with postpartum depression and bi-polar disorder.

OP posts:

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:33

I mean, from the prosecution's closing address -

"There's no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from mental illness and that she tried to kill herself," said Assistant District Attorney, Jennifer Sprague.

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:26

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:24

Yes, in a lot of States the burden of proof falls on the defence, e.g. they have to prove without doubt that the person they are defending wasn’t mentally well during the time of the crime. However, in Massachusetts the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, e.g. they have to prove without any doubt that the person they are trying to prosecute was in the right frame of mind. In this case, it doesn’t benefit the prosecution given the mountain of evidence. The defence don’t have to prove that LC was psychotic, they just need to put that point forward and it’s then up to the prosecution to prove that she wasn’t. They haven’t done a good job of that but they couldn’t anyway given the evidence.

Edited

Show quote history

The defence's case rests on her committing the murders while under "comand hallucinations" due to psychosis.

The prosecution's case rests on her suffering severe depression, without psychosis, as evidenced by the clarity of her pre-planning, and all the treating doctors having encountered no evidence of psychosis at any time prior.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:24

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:17

I'm not up on Massachusetts law, but apparently the difference mattered in this case, as the prosecution made a point of it.

Show quote history

Yes, in a lot of States the burden of proof falls on the defence, e.g. they have to prove without doubt that the person they are defending wasn’t mentally well during the time of the crime. However, in Massachusetts the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, e.g. they have to prove without any doubt that the person they are trying to prosecute was in the right frame of mind. In this case, it doesn’t benefit the prosecution given the mountain of evidence. The defence don’t have to prove that LC was psychotic, they just need to put that point forward and it’s then up to the prosecution to prove that she wasn’t. They haven’t done a good job of that but they couldn’t anyway given the evidence.

OP posts:

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 15:23

Anyone able to comment on him apparently wearing different shoes in the two shops?

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:22

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 15:09

Can anyone clarify why the kids were lying face down when the paramedics went to the basement, when PC said he attempted CPR? Callan was still alive - why didn't PC try to work on him, instead of sitting on the sofa?

Also, Lindsay was 28 degrees when they arrived - how long was she outdoors to drop to such a low temp?

Where do you get these things from? The children were lying face down when he found them, not when the paramedics went to them.

Her body temperature was low because she was lying in the snow, and because she had a spinal cord injury which would disrupt her body's ability to regulate temperature on top of the cold conditions.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:19

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 15:02

I’m not understanding your point at all. You seem to be suggesting that if someone is mentally unwell and has a mental health diagnosis, that automatically makes them
not guilty of any crimes they commit by reason of their state of mind. This isn’t the case.

One can have a diagnosis of say depression and still be held responsible for a crime.

edited for clarity

Edited

Show quote history

I’m saying it doesn’t matter, legally, whether she had postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis. What matters is if she had a mental issues that impaired her judgement. Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution has to prove that she wasn’t impaired for her to be found guilty. I’m sure not all of the 11 jurors who found her not guilty were sympathetic towards LC, but they have to follow Massachusetts law. To prove that she is guilty, the prosecution needs to show without any doubt that she was in the right frame of mind and did not suffer a mental break during the time that the killings were committed. That’s an almost impossible task given the amount of evidence.

OP posts:

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:17

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:13

But under Massachusetts law, it doesn’t matter whether it was postpartum depression or psychosis. Any mental health issue that can cause lack of criminal responsibility e.g., poor judgement, can be considered the basis for an acquittal.

Show quote history

I'm not up on Massachusetts law, but apparently the difference mattered in this case, as the prosecution made a point of it.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 15:13

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:08

The prosecution acknowledged she was mentally ill. Their point is she was not suffering from post-partum psychosis at the time - and it would be a very odd PPP that showed up for less than an hour and vanished thereafter.

Show quote history

But under Massachusetts law, it doesn’t matter whether it was postpartum depression or psychosis. Any mental health issue that can cause lack of criminal responsibility e.g., poor judgement, can be considered the basis for an acquittal.

OP posts:

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 15:09

Can anyone clarify why the kids were lying face down when the paramedics went to the basement, when PC said he attempted CPR? Callan was still alive - why didn't PC try to work on him, instead of sitting on the sofa?

Also, Lindsay was 28 degrees when they arrived - how long was she outdoors to drop to such a low temp?

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 15:08

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 14:16

I think the issue is both sides have a point. From the point of the prosecution, her actions appear planned. From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was). So legally I’m not sure how she can be found guilty as they would have to prove that she lied to get access to medications, she lied in her diary and to family and friends for months leading up to the killings, AND she attended medical appointments for mental health reasons that weren’t necessary. They simply can’t do that. There’s no way for this to go other than she be found not guilty under Massachusetts law.

Edited

Show quote history

The prosecution acknowledged she was mentally ill. Their point is she was not suffering from post-partum psychosis at the time - and it would be a very odd PPP that showed up for less than an hour and vanished thereafter.

Dibdibbob · 05/09/2026 15:06

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 09:54

That is not the same as saying that planning and acting normal are signs someone is unwell - what a ridiculous thing to say.

Umm. It was you who said that acting normal is a sign of being unwell.

Planning and “acting normal” are not signs that the person was ok - quite the opposite.

I agree that it’s a ridiculous claim.

Post partum psychosis is real. But it doesn’t follow from this fact that LC was suffering from post partum psychosis.

Show quote history

I did not say acting normal was a sign of being unwell - I said some people who are mentally unwell are capable of acting normally.

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 15:02

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 14:16

I think the issue is both sides have a point. From the point of the prosecution, her actions appear planned. From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was). So legally I’m not sure how she can be found guilty as they would have to prove that she lied to get access to medications, she lied in her diary and to family and friends for months leading up to the killings, AND she attended medical appointments for mental health reasons that weren’t necessary. They simply can’t do that. There’s no way for this to go other than she be found not guilty under Massachusetts law.

Edited

Show quote history

I’m not understanding your point at all. You seem to be suggesting that if someone is mentally unwell and has a mental health diagnosis, that automatically makes them
not guilty of any crimes they commit by reason of their state of mind. This isn’t the case.

One can have a diagnosis of say depression and still be held responsible for a crime.

edited for clarity

EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 14:54

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 14:16

I think the issue is both sides have a point. From the point of the prosecution, her actions appear planned. From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was). So legally I’m not sure how she can be found guilty as they would have to prove that she lied to get access to medications, she lied in her diary and to family and friends for months leading up to the killings, AND she attended medical appointments for mental health reasons that weren’t necessary. They simply can’t do that. There’s no way for this to go other than she be found not guilty under Massachusetts law.

Edited

Show quote history

But she won’t just be off the hook, she’ll be NGRI and go to another facility.

StraightTalkingTina · 05/09/2026 14:52

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 14:16

I think the issue is both sides have a point. From the point of the prosecution, her actions appear planned. From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was). So legally I’m not sure how she can be found guilty as they would have to prove that she lied to get access to medications, she lied in her diary and to family and friends for months leading up to the killings, AND she attended medical appointments for mental health reasons that weren’t necessary. They simply can’t do that. There’s no way for this to go other than she be found not guilty under Massachusetts law.

Edited

Show quote history

They don’t have to prove she wasn’t mentally unwell .They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that her evidenced mental state wasn’t such that it rendered her absent of criminal responsibility for the death of 3 children.

Following the law to the T it is impossible for them to do that given the evidence heard.

I think the prosecution will seek to change the charges to only Involuntary Manslaughter and Nor guilty n due to insanity only. It closes the gap significantly between planning it and executing it without being clear what the outcome of her actions meant, or planning it and executing it with no ability to control her hallucinogenic commands.

the prosecutions goal is a conviction that comes with prison detention. The defences goal is a conviction that comes with mental health detention.

Original poster

KellyK2026 · 05/09/2026 14:16

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 13:58

You are commenting on a case that you admit you know absolutely nothing about.

In case you haven’t even read the thread, many people do not believe there is evidence that LC had post partum psychosis. It’s kind of a key point you need to grasp to be able to contribute meaningful to the discussion.

Show quote history

I think the issue is both sides have a point. From the point of the prosecution, her actions appear planned. From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was). So legally I’m not sure how she can be found guilty as they would have to prove that she lied to get access to medications, she lied in her diary and to family and friends for months leading up to the killings, AND she attended medical appointments for mental health reasons that weren’t necessary. They simply can’t do that. There’s no way for this to go other than she be found not guilty under Massachusetts law.

OP posts:

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 14:06

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 13:20

They have video evidence and phone evidence that backs his whereabouts up, and also her online searches in the hours, days, and weeks before.

Show quote history

Yes, and her apple watch and phone also stopped logging data at times when he was away.

There is no evidence to say whether the call to 911 was made from the house or nearby.

He sent an email during that time window. He can't seem to remember whether he sent it from his phone or the laptop. The laptop was in the house.

The CCTV images appear to show him wearing different shoes - was he questioned on that, does anyone know?

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 13:58

time4anothername · 05/09/2026 13:43

you do realise don't you that unfortunately some HCPs may be covering their tracks and also that when someone has severe mental ill health, coordination of their care in a fragmented health care system is extremely difficult. I certainly would not want to read a wiki page on this case, they are not reliable at all.

Again, please anyone who sees this thread, please read and share this
https://www.app-network.org/postpartum-psychosis-in-the-media/responsible-reporting-on-suicide-infanticide-and-intrusive-thoughts-linked-to-postpartum-psychosis/

Show quote history

You are commenting on a case that you admit you know absolutely nothing about.

In case you haven’t even read the thread, many people do not believe there is evidence that LC had post partum psychosis. It’s kind of a key point you need to grasp to be able to contribute meaningful to the discussion.

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 13:54

time4anothername · 05/09/2026 13:43

you do realise don't you that unfortunately some HCPs may be covering their tracks and also that when someone has severe mental ill health, coordination of their care in a fragmented health care system is extremely difficult. I certainly would not want to read a wiki page on this case, they are not reliable at all.

Again, please anyone who sees this thread, please read and share this
https://www.app-network.org/postpartum-psychosis-in-the-media/responsible-reporting-on-suicide-infanticide-and-intrusive-thoughts-linked-to-postpartum-psychosis/

Show quote history

She was seen by a psychiatrist for four months leading up to the murders. She was seen by a psychiatrist in the very reputable McLean Hospital as an in-patient, and diagnosed with "major depressive disorder, severe, without psychotic features". She was seen in specialist post-natal departments, seen by a therapist, seen by two psychiatric nurse practitioners, and several ER doctors. Attended the Women & Infants hospital program for postpartum depression.
They can't all be covering up.

As a nurse, she would know better than to go to multiple ERs, without disclosing what else she was on and who she was seeing; and also to give the antidepressants more than a few sporadic days to work. She also managed to be compliant with taking benzodiazepines rather than the antipsychotics and antidepressants that were prescribed.