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

Just in case you accidentally missed the rest of my post where I said

She denied to Jennifer Tufts, her psychiatrist, having a plan to take her own life or harm anyone else and never revealed that she had thoughts about harming the children.
Jennifer Tufts also testified that LC never told her about manic episodes, nor about hearing voices or having other signs of psychosis.
She felt close to feeling suicidal, hopeless or like she was going to die.

Jennifer saw her the day before she killed the children. Patrick also testified that she was having a good day on the day of their deaths, building snowmen with the children.

Please tell us what Patrick or Jennifer Tufts should have done in this scenario. You appear to be deliberately selecting elements of information to misrepresent the actual events.

but her mother is a woman, so I don’t think any blame will be attached or any suggestion that her mother acted wrongly. I hope to be proved wrong.

Not if she denies it to the psychiatrist it doesn't. Or should they just go on the say so of Patrick?

You’ve phrased this to sort of imply clinicians were aware LC expressed thoughts of harming her children. Just to clarify (at least as far as I’ve heard, correct me if I’m wrong) she didn’t disclose this to any medical professionals including the one she saw the day before she murdered her children.

I’m bemused why you think LC being white has affected how her husband (also white) responded to the situation he found himself in. I’m actually unconvinced that people believe white women don’t kill their children. Society doesn’t expect any woman to kill her child but I’m pretty sure everyone is aware that it occasionally does happen in all races.

@BingoJingo None of this would rise to the level of a section even if PC had reported it - or her mother whom testifed that she had reported thoughts of harming the children.

Sorry but this is nonsense. PC and her mother didn’t have this knowledge but post partum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency. If a mother reports late onset (ie within 12 months of birth) suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming her children - that would absolutely be sectionable. The crux is danger to self or others and this was both.

its about the clinical position of the individual to be legally sane in killing their children but also legally meeting the threshold of institutional detention due to being actively suicidal.

You are conflating two seperate things here. As you say in your next post

Actually the issue is not whether she was psychotic, it’s whether she was too unwell to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

Someone can meet the threshold of institutional detention due to being actively suicidal and also be able to appreciate that they are doing wrong in murdering someone and/or able to control their behaviour.

The two are compatible.

And other cases are relevant in that you are suggesting that each snd every person who takes their own life after murdering another person or persons is not criminally responsible for that murder and should, for example if they attempt suicide but are unsuccessful, be found not guilty by reason of insanity. I honestly believe, if you do believe this, you are in a tiny minority.

Were the 9/11 hijackers not criminally responsible? Was Salman Abedi not criminally responsible for the Manchester Arena murders? Family annihalators like Christopher Foster? They all took their own lives. And yes, especially with school shootings, often warning signs have been missed. That doesn’t automatically mean that the killer is not criminally responsible. Just because a situation might have been avoided with appropriate action by others does not automatically absolve the killer of all responsibility.

Never at any point have I said that the murders are the sole evidence of psychosis. I have pointed out all of the evidence that describes the clinical
pathway towards a viable psychosis diagnosis.

the deaths of the children are the outcome of misdiagnosis and lack of belief of her own words.

I don’t think you are very clear at all as to how psychosis can present itself. However whether she was or wasn’t, the evidence presented does provide clear reasonable doubt of criminal responsibility, because every single item pointed to a significant mental health crisis, and there was no evidence to support any viable alternative motive.

Yes I don’t like the blame on PC either. Just generally it’s come up a fair bit.

What a bizarre manipulation. I never said anything of the sort. My point was that LC should be considered as well as the children.

She saw Jennifer Tufts the day before she slaughtered her children by the way.

I am responding to your disgusting and unedifying attempts to place the blame on Patrick and to clarify that, even if he did report it, she had denied to Jennifer Tufts, her psychiatrist, having a plan to take her own life or harm anyone else and never revealed that she had thoughts about harming the children.

Jennifer Tufts also testified that LC never told her about manic episodes, nor about hearing voices or having other signs of psychosis.
She felt close to feeling suicidal, hopeless or like she was going to die.

None of this would rise to the level of a section even if PC had reported it - or her mother whom testifed that she had reported thoughts of harming the children. Stop victim blaming and if you are going to victim blame, do it to her mother as well as Patrick Clancy who lost his entire family.

It doesn't matter whether or not she thinks it's wrong. Murder is wrong. End off. A lot of folk commit serious crimes and don't think they're doing anything wrong. Is that the new bar. Terrifying.

Idk it’s hard to imagine but I’d probably tell people I live (ie my own family) to get advice on what to do next.

Perhaps I’m more wary of men hurting families because it’s more frequent too.

Actually the issue is not whether she was psychotic, it’s whether she was too unwell to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

Yes, I agree. I am using psychotic to mean psychotic enough to not appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct, OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law as I believe is everyone else in this conversation.

it is convenient that you exclude ‘killing your children’ on the list of acceptable behaviour or evidence of a mentally unwell woman achieving 1 or 2 above, when it is that action that precisely determines just how unwell she was. That and her own suicide attempt of course.

It’s not a matter of convenience. It’s that people seem to be saying (and you are doing the same) that murdering her children is evidence enough of psychosis. Unless we are going to say that any mother who kills her child is in psychosis without any further evidence being required (which I would be surprised if people would agree with but perhaps that it what people think?) it is not reasonable to accept this as the only evidence. It is a completely circular argument and assumes no mother could ever murder her child unless in psychosis. Do you believe that to be the case?

I don’t accept that a suicide attempt is in itself evidence of psychosis. People attempt suicide for many reasons outside of psychosis.

reminding that she did report thoughts of self harm and causing harm to the children, which everyone brushed off. They didn’t believe she was capable of anything so bad. Because they didn’t understand her condition.

Again, people self harm and hurt others and have thoughts of doing so for other reasons than psychosis.

People Do claim it, but if there is no evidence of these claims prior to the incident then it is often disingenuous.

This case has the opposite clearly.

Why did her mother not report it?
What if he reported it, she is sectioned, and then let out because she denies any plans?
What if she then killed them?

This would not have saved them would it? Because ultimately they will not hold her if she denies any plans of self harm or harm to others, which is what was testified to. So we are back at square one aren't we

Stop making these outlandish speculative leaps to defend a child killer.

Was the feeling there that she said it but dipped in and out of being in a bad way?

So on the day it was meant to be a ‘good day’ with snow man building etc.

Idk hard to know, maybe sectioning is appropriate. Is everyone with similar thoughts sectioned here? Or other help instead.

I find it odd she didn’t kill herself. The cuts on her throat were so superficial they didn’t even need stitches, the wrist ones did, but were far from going to be fatal and the windo she jumped from also not likely to be fatal

in my view anyone who murders is mentally unwell. But does that always mean no criminal responsibility, no.

both things can be true, she can be mentally unwell and also plan to kill ner kids and know it’s wrong. I beleive that to be the case and the failed suicide attempt a useful way to back up her insanity alibi.

do I think she had no idea what she was doing, wasn’t in control no.i think she knew, she planned it,she gave her self a justification. But she was also very unwell.

as said, these two things can be true.

According to this article, Patrick told the court of his former wife’s statement and said she told him she had no plans to hurt the kids.

It came down to her saying something but her then denying she had any plans - they would not section her unless she had plans. You need to listen to the testimony, this came out in evidence several times.

Jurors have heard testimony from Patrick that his wife told him after the killings, while in hospital, that she’d “heard a man’s voice telling her that if she didn’t do it now, she would lose her chance, or something like that”.

She heard a man's voice telling her she would lose her chance and she then took it upon herself to strangle those precious babies to death with individual exercise bands holding them to choke the life out of them. She needs to be locked up for life.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/17/lindsay-clancy-trial-mother-witness-testimony

If we are to accept at a societal and legislative level that a certain state of mind voids you of your criminal responsibility, we must accept that that can apply even in the most deplorable and devastating circumstances.

I am satisfied having seen the evidence in this trial that there is reasonable doubt around her criminal responsibility. It is undeniable to me that she was very, very poorly.

I think her actions were pure evil, but I don’t think she is criminally responsible for them.

As an aside, if it is true and provable that the hold out juror admitted he had reasonable doubt but refused to return a not guilty verdict in spite of his instruction, I think he should have been removed from the jury at best and prosecuted at worst.