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

Not to convict in this case simply means not guilty of murder in the first degree and incarceration at a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.

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.

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

Noone knows....

I don’t know the minutiae of the case as I haven’t followed it that closely.

But it’s the job of the defence to cast doubt on the prosecution case and they have effectively highlighted these inconsistencies. This I think is what has sparked these theories on SM.

While it might be technically possible for PC to take LC’s phone with him to the shops to establish communication between the two, their phones will presumably have been geofenced by the police and aiui LC’s Apple Watch locates her at home.

So I think the defence did a great job at creating doubt over the official narrative but that doesn’t mean it’s not correct.

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

Surely you are not suggesting the jurors believe she didn’t kill her children? You can’t believe that? This is madness

Exactly this…. I think it’s the filming of their trials that had people changing their mind based on the evidence presented, or lack of. She didn’t go into the case with any level of support, outside of her family. The prosecution hasn’t even been able to find one person to argue she was a terrible mother who hated her children and would want them dead. Their approach doesn’t seem anything like justice for those children, which comes from being curious and just wanting the truth

Those who say her defence lawyer missed the inconsistencies are just acknowledging they didn’t watch the trial. He didn’t miss them, he subtly pointed them all out and was very successful in sowing the seeds of reasonable doubt.

I’ve not watched the case and I don’t know if she did it or not or if he did it, I do believe even if he wasn’t the one who physically killed those poor children, he carries a degree of responsibility as do all the healthcare professionals who let her down.

i just hope we don’t lose sight of desperate conversations needed around women’s health more generally (parking mental health for a second, women’s time to diagnosis for any physical health problem is materially longer than a man’s because women are so routinely gaslit and dismissed)and then specifically post partum mental health because so many women can relate to being dismissed my self and others on this thread included. As well as cultural and societal expectations around motherhood and the chronic lack of support there is for struggling mothers

Actually there are a lot of cranks on social media making up completely untrue stuff however the inconsistency in the evidence we know about because the defense team pointed them out at the trial.

@Conundrummum123 We’re going to have to agree to disagree on whether it’s splitting hairs to clarify that women kill their children at roughly (slightly lower, possibly) the same rate as men, and that therefore a woman killing her own child is not much rarer an event than a man killing his own child.

But I do agree with your point that attitudes towards women who kill their children and difficulty grasping why a mother would do this are behind some of the reluctance to admit that LC killed her children and invention of stories when her exh did it.

And the 11 out of 12 jurors who found enough reasonable doubt not to convict her?

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 think there’s a little of that but a lot of people didn’t start suspecting the husband until well into the court case.

Or at the very least thinking that the police seriously screwed up the investigation because the physical evidence was peculiar, the witness statements were contradictory, the photo evidence raised more questions than answers, and the husband’s behavior before, during and after the day of the killings has been very odd.

I think the big difference being in the US is being able to watch all the court proceedings live and hear the witness statements rather than just reading reporting on it.

I went into it thinking it would be interesting to see what the evidence would be for proving not in sound mind to be found criminally negligent but now I have serious doubts that she did it.

For the people so sure of her guilt, if she was still in a coma and had never spoken a word. what evidence would you have to convict her of murdering the children noting

• Her prints aren’t on the bands or the knife she used to cut her wrists and throat.
• There were questions around why the wound on her throat didn’t appear to be in the direction you would expect for someone right handed doing a self inflicted wound
• Most of the damming internet searches were proven not to be her
• Much evidence suggests she went head first out of the window severely drug affected or unconscious by her lack of reflexes that she wouldn’t have been in control of if she was fully conscious
• The neighbour saw her in the snow at a time that would make it beyond exceedingly unlikely that a pulse could have been brought back for Callan

There are also many other inconsistencies. I don’t have any issue with accepting women can murder, for mental health reasons or cold blood: I think it’s ridiculous though that anyone can say they know for certain what happened here. It may well have been her but essentially the trial has shown that there was next to no investigation of what happened. That is reasonable doubt, and I suspect her lawyer will go much much harder on these gaps next time. He seemed to get 11 people over the line while just tiptoeing around many of the holes in the police investigation and prosecution case.

It’s almost as if mental illness manifests differently in different people. LC was never diagnosed with schizophrenia.

I personal know a schizophrenic who killed someone during a psychotic episode. It was a tragedy for everyone.

that just an odd splitting of hairs.

but even if we split that finely outside of family annihilation which is what I was talking about when I said women so rarely kill especially children (which is true as that vast majority of killing is done by men including family annihilation). I’ve seen a 60/40 or 57/43% split between men and women so still it is more common for men.

the overarching point still stands, women who kill is a far rarer occurrence then men. It is much more ‘shocking’ especially because mothers ‘meant’ to be eternally patient, gentle, pure, compassionate creatures (the social construct of motherhood) that 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

Oh I think she was badly let down. Post partum psychosis is hardly even recognised in most of the USA, it doesn't even appear in DSM5 which is absolutely scandalous. Here in the UK we have been treating it, usually successfully for at least 45 years. We also have something called the Infanticide Act (1922 and 1938) which gives post partum mothers a degree of mercy if they kill their infants by recognising that PP mothers may be suffering hormone mediated disturbance of the mind. Even as long ago as the mid 19th century there was recognition of the problem, as shown by the fact that no mother was executed for killing their baby after 1849. Considering the Victorian penchant for hanging people for all sorts of things this was considered quite radical.

I see, you do indeed mean family annihilation killings.

To clarify, men commit the vast proportion of family annihilation killings, up to 95%.

But including all killings of their own children (so not just those murdered in a family annihilation) men and women kill roughly the same amount of children.

I don’t think for one minute she did it. Chris Watts vibes.

Possibly, or family annihilation murders which I haven’t seen statistics for but I would guess are mainly by men?

You can just google family annihilation killing statistics

Maybe the poster is referring to the statistic that 95% of violent crime is committed by men?

No, the numbers of killings of a child by mother and father are roughly equal. Australian article but it seems to be the same in other countries. Amongst infants there are more killings by mothers, more killings of older children by fathers.

Where are you seeing this 95% figure?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-20/men-and-women-kill-their-children-in-roughly-equal-numbers-why/13074952

But that is confirmation bias, I’m so glad you friend hasn’t been dangerous but that doesn’t mean others with the same mental health diagnosis aren’t or at least cannot become dangerous. I’d also state that your friend hasn’t YET become dangerous and she might never but there is a good chance she could be, it is literally documented in medical literature