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

Exactly this! It's really disturbing to see some of the reactions and strange to see such polarised reactions from men and women, with a lot of women supporting LC.
I think the crime is so horrific and goes against every instinct as a woman and mother, that some people can only contemplate another mother doing this if they are mentally ill. It doesn't seem clear cut to me at all. There is a distinct possibility she knew what she was doing.

There is something deeper going on in society alright and I don't know what it is.

Posts like this are indicative that something very strange is going on in relation to these murders. I have heard it described as Karmelo Anthony for white women and I can see why. For anyone who hasn’t heard of KA, he is a young black man in the US who murdered a white young man and, despite it being a pretty open and shut conviction, received huge support from many, mainly black, people, with huge sums raised and so on).

I am not comparing people wildly claiming that LC did not kill her children and/or that her exh did to those saying she should not be found guilty of first degree murder. Obviously these approaches are worlds apart. But I do think everyone should consider the extreme responses this case has raised - women dressing up in pink to stand outside the courthouse, the huge sums raised, the TikTok videos of women holding their babIes saying “Same, Lindsay”, the grinning and winking woman journalist etc etc - and should ask what on earth is going on to cause this.

WTF are you on about ???

Women so rarely kill and especially their children

This is incorrect. Whilst women commit a very small proportion of killings overall, women kill their own children at roughly the same rate as men.

And yet you have the red pills insulting women and defending Patrick…. You couldn’t make it up

It still doesn’t stack up. What you’ve put about negligence isn’t correct.

But I think that is what people aren’t understanding. She has already been found guilty of killing her children, that’s not up for debate. The question is whether she is guilty of murder, in which case she will spend her life in prison, OR will she be found guilty of killing but not murder due to mental health, in which case she will spend her life in a mental institute. No way is she wanting to or can get out of it. The question is where she will be spending her time. In a place with people like Watts or in a place where she can receive help.

Im not posting incorrect stuff. I never said it was the law I said it was my speculation of how it would be interpreted. Good grief! I’m a British lawyer not an American one. Fucking hell

Women so rarely kill and especially their children that is almost unfathomable to us that a women, let along a mother could. It’s part of the myth or the precarious pedestal of motherhood

I fear the endless hunting to prove the man did it, might make us feel better but it misses the point and it might mean that we a society desperately miss the lesson on maternal expectations and mental health that this case must teach us.

Clearly never seen anyone in the throes of psychosis then.

There’s a lot more going on there with that husband of hers .
She keeps saying she did it because Patrick told her she did.
Patrick, who went on holidays 19 days after his children were killed , was in a relationship less than a year later .
Her DNA was never found on those exercise bands only his was .

That’s not the law. I’m not sure why you’re posting incorrect stuff.

I don’t need facts to speculate, I’m telling you now if Patricia Clancy behaved like Patrick the public would be baying for blood.
i think he should be done for negligent homicide regardless of whether she expressed harm to the kids. She could have dropped 8 month year old the drugs she was on and then what? It’s not acceptable

He actually did apply to have the questions separated in the trial - so they could address the question of whether she actually did it FIRST and then, if found to have committed the acts beyond reasonable doubt, the question around insanity would be raised. His motion was denied and they were covered within the same trial, so he had to walk the line of both highlighting reasonable doubt she committed the acts (which it looks like he had a 91% success rate with) AND the insanity defence. So yes, it was possibly a better defence and one he wanted to run separately based on HIS application to separate the issues.

You do need to know the facts before posting as below, otherwise it’s just spreading incorrect information.

I will wait for someone with the facts to answer this, because I’m genuinely not sure. However, women all the time get done for not leaving partners when there is dv and endangering kids so this isn’t a stretch

Piss-poor attempt at a deflection. You said "No one is trying to say the man did it". I showed, with examples, of people on this very thread who were saying that the man did it. I think your tinfoil hat must be on a bit tight as you're losing the ability to follow a conversation.

What you posted earlier depends on whether the person told the other parent that they will be violent towards the dc. Did that happen?