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

I'm talking about women and men's reactions to the case though. Not how women and men are treated differently.

Because women don’t get the benefit of the doubt the same way men do.
ive said this several times but ill say it again.
patricia Clancy leaves her babies with a hubby who’s off his tits on prescription drugs and the babies die. Patricia then gets a new partner, goes on holiday, buries three kids in one urn and gets preggers, not even attending most of the trial.
tell me Patricia gets the same leeway as Patrick with a straight face - oh wait you can’t

"why are you wittering on about misandry on a women’s board?"

Because it's very much in evidence in this case and it's cruel of you to minimise the trauma of losing his 3 children.

How condescending :-)
It's not sexism. There has been a general difference in the way men have reacted to the trial compared to women. It's observation.
Why do you think it's sexism?

And despite what must have been intense pressure from the other jurors, the judge and the defence for LC one juror wasn't convinced and held out against them for something like 5 days? I think that shows considerable belief in his own opinion that she was guilty.

It’s reverse sexism my dear which is what you’re doing but yours is actual sexism

I don't think being mentally ill excuses her to be honest. Many women suffer post partum depression. Some women suffer post partum psychosis. Very very few of them MURDER their children.

She knew she was unwell. She had thought previously that she was capable of hurting them. She could have walked away and didn't

I've no idea what you're trying to say. I could hazard a guess but I would probably misinterpret it.

imo - men are too emotional to be on juries, this guy had doubts but wouldn’t back down because vibes and emotions

• this is satire

"Another person who’s not read the outcome and has come on a women’s board to defend a man who doesn’t need defending"

There's plenty of women still claiming he framed her; which is pretty disgraceful.

And reasonable doubts still requires interpretation; if verdicts were solely based on facts we wouldn't need juries. The judge explained repeatedly explained what reasonable doubts meant in this case and if the lone juror was ignoring " the facts" had the power to replace them with a reserve juror - but didn't do so because he didn't think that's what happened. Yet again people on the internet know better though!

It's not a question of believing 1 over 11. I'm highlighting the fact that one juror didn't back down from his position despite intense pressure which showed that he certainly didn't agree with the 11. It's obviously not a clear cut case.

I don't know whether she was psychotic or not and I don't see how people watching the court case online can make that judgement either when even the jury was divided.
The jury was made up of 9 women and 3 men. One man held out. I wonder is that fair to have an uneven divide of men and women seeing as men and women are generally having different reactions to the case but it's probably done randomly. Either way, it's hard to see how a retrail can be done fairly given the level of public scrutiny the case has had.

Internet cranks are losing their tiny minds over this case. Just when you think nothing can surprise you about the virtual world...

A slew of social media addicted women, convinced she wasn't even responsible! They think they've spotted 'glaring' inconsistencies that Clancy's actual qualified defence attorney has missed. Absolute morons.

At her re-trial, she really ought to consider employing Tracey from facebook and Linda from tiktok. Cos who needs eight years in law school, when you have tiktok...??? And, the gold standard, wikipedia.

I do have experience. A very close family member suffered from post partum psychosis and she very sadly took her own life.

Yes believe the one over the 11 🙄

Both of you think this because you have zero experience, qualifications or clinical exposure to actual psychosis generated from post partum
misdiagnosis and as a result prescribing medications that actually make this type of patient significantly worse.

Her mind was not her own. She had hallucinogenic delusions. Her behaviour was entirely symptomatic of a patient exposed to inappropriate meds and treatment that should have been detected.

whilst she carried out the actions, she wasn’t independently, determinately and autonomously responsible for those actions.

"when women go against this, we as a society cannot fathom it. This juxtaposition is why I think so many people are clinging to the fact that the husband did it and framed her"

I think society can fathom it. It's not like she is the first woman to do it, and she's not even the first woman on trial for murdering their child year in the us.

People quote 95% of murders or family annihilation (does this apply here since the husband survive.)

Well that means the other 5% are women. But certain people say violence is always men and women are non violent ( which most people know is not true - they are just less violent)

So they say the 5% of women have been pushed to it somehow, and usually blame it on a man or institutional misogyny caused by men -as if mentally ill men always get appropriate treatment or help before they commit such heinous acts.

That's an extreme view and a form of misandry It's wrong to apply those statistics here where Patrick's movements are accounted for and most reasonable commentars (men and women) accept she did it; and are only arguing about whether she knew what she was doing was wrong at the time.

🤦‍♀️

no she’s suggesting they wouldn’t convict her because they had reasonable doubt - which is the facts and im surprised you’re even arguing against facts? Why are you even posting if you’re this clueless about what happened

without derailing the thread the nuance by which women still proportionally account for less child deaths is telling, the women who do it are typically in the throws of post partum psychosis and other very serious mental illnesses crises v the men and then men’s motivation usually centres on punishment, revenge or control

it’s a different picture, one is of mental illness and the other of abuse

You're suggesting they all thought she didn't actually do it???

And despite what must have been intense pressure from the other jurors, the judge and the defence for LC one juror wasn't convinced and held out against them for something like 5 days? I think that shows considerable belief in his own opinion that she was guilty.