Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

30 days only

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

983 replies

KellyK2026 · 04/09/2026 16:50

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 11:28

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 11:27

eh? How can I be certain of this? It's one opinion, based partly on all the inconsistencies

It’s a bizarre take.

Theunamedcat · 05/09/2026 11:28

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:21

And she spoke coherently to her husband on the phone whilst in the midst of killing them and in a supposed trance like state under the control of this command hallucination (that had never occurred before). Why people are rushing to defend this woman in light of the actual facts is just something I cannot comprehend. Those children were brutally murdered by their mother in a planned and methodical fashion.

According to him she did, whilst I can believe that she is a killer, i dont believe him at all this is the problem its not her its his actions that dont add up his claims that dont add up i would be keeping a close eye on his second marriage if im honest

Monty36 · 05/09/2026 11:29

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 11:12

Able to afford a nanny three days a week. Hardly below the poverty line.

Not wanting to have a sort of argument. From what I can see there are people who say they gave the impression of being well off but were not in reality. A nanny three days a week but not full time would suggest there might be some truth in that view.
Anyway, they were not what an American would call well off. But middle of the road. And affording health care in America is the single biggest reason Americans go bankrupt. Because they cannot afford it. And cannot get the insurance or afford the premiums.

Aluna · 05/09/2026 11:29

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:22

I listened to the expert evidence in court, from one of the psychiatrists that gave evidence for the prosecution. It was even mentioned in closing arguments. HTH.

Who is not an expert in PPP or female reproductive health and specialises in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Redheadedstepchild · 05/09/2026 11:29

I have read the whole thread and one thing I haven't seen mentioned so far the two seperate civil lawsuits being filed by Lindsay Clancy and her ex husband, Patrick.

Lindsay Clancy: Personal Injury.

Failure to diagnose bi polar disorder with postpartum onset. Prescription of inappropriate medication and, "Polyphamacy" which worsened her condition.

Defendants: Psychiatrist Dr Jennifer Tufts, Aster Mental Health, Nurse Practitioner Rebecca Jolotta, with expansions to other institutions including McClean Hospital and Women and Infants Day Program.

Damages Sought: Financial Recovery to cover lifetime medical expenses and specialist care resulting from permanent paralysis and severe physical injuries sustained when she attempted to end her own life.

Patrick Clancy: As an individual and also as the representative of the estates of Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy. Wrongful Death.

Defendents: Much the same as above.

Damages Sought: Financial Accountabilty for the deaths of his three children, under Massachusets law, 100% of this money will go to him.

What does this mean in relation to this thread?

My take on it all is that this case is being used and receiving such huge media coverage because at least originally it was thought that this would be, "Big Pharma/American Health Care System" on trial.

I think the prevailing wind was that it would be taken more or less on face value that Lindsay did it due to postpartum psychosis caused by poor care/cocktail of ever more unsuitable drugs and the enemy would be perceived as those listed in the civil suits.

It hasn't played that way. In the meantime, the witnesses might have always had one part of their brain focused on how it implicated them in the civil cases and not been completely forthcoming.

I do think that will be some kind of landmark case. One which is quoted as having a name, like Clancy v Massachusets or similar and potentially will be a law changer, or at the very least, a catalyst for social attitudes to change.

Maybe about post partum psychosis and treatment.
Maybe about the US Health Care System
Maybe both.

Or it could all fizzle out in that she was guilty on retrail and the civil suits will be chucked out. Which is really how I think it will conclude. Until Round Three ...

For what it's worth, I think, having followed about 80% of the case and having changed my mind seceral times over, my take on it all is that:

Everybody is to blame. It's an almost Shakespearean or Greek Tragedy.

"A great man, brought down by a fatal flaw, best described as pride or hubris."

Lindsey and Patrick had a life that ran like a perfect railway schedule. No blocks on the tracks, everything went like clockwork. When Patrick started to spend more time away and Lindsay became overwhelmed, although not nescessarily in that order) they expected their money, their family, their medical insurance, the authorities, the doctors, the nurses, the friends, the network - to understand and help.

Then they found out that everybody is equal and wretched in the face of mental illness, no body understands or wants to know, or gives the wrong advice or help because they don't understand but pretend to do.

It's not going to go away. Things are not going back to before. I think she was both mentally very ill but also very, very angry.

If I was a juror, however, on balance, I would vote that she was, at the time of the actions, in sufficient mental capacity to understand what she was doing was wrong and that she would be judged for it.

However, she was confident that the judgement she would get FINALLY was sympathy. Even if she was dead. "Look at what you made me do!"

But, that, of course. Is delusional in a common parlance sense of the word but I don't think it gets under the line legally.

So, if I was a juror, I'd have to say guilty.

The civil cases are deeply flawed. The American Health Care System has great faults but if they wanted a test case to try it against, they picked the wrong one.

I also do not think that there is enough compelling evidence of post partum psychosis. Which is real but again, as a test case, they picked the wrong one.

In summary, the Clancy case was meant to advance the causes of Mental Health Care reform and treatment of postpartum psychosis but has caused so much confusion and heated argument as to set both causes back no end.

I would bet that we'll still be hearing of Lindsay Clancy in a decade. Guilty next time, then...

...she'll eventually be acquitted. In about 2036, by which time attitudes to postpartum psychosis, mental illness, the penal system and every damned thing else will have changed so much, I won't even recognise what I've written in this post as my own thoughts.

Disappointed100 · 05/09/2026 11:30

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:21

And she spoke coherently to her husband on the phone whilst in the midst of killing them and in a supposed trance like state under the control of this command hallucination (that had never occurred before). Why people are rushing to defend this woman in light of the actual facts is just something I cannot comprehend. Those children were brutally murdered by their mother in a planned and methodical fashion.

command hallucination (that had never occurred before)
Hmm, weird - like
a) she wasn't having command hallucinations, and killed them in cold blood, or
b) that she wasn't having command hallucinations, and PC was literally telling her to do it.

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:31

Theunamedcat · 05/09/2026 11:28

According to him she did, whilst I can believe that she is a killer, i dont believe him at all this is the problem its not her its his actions that dont add up his claims that dont add up i would be keeping a close eye on his second marriage if im honest

You do know that just prior to the killings, she also rang up the CVS pharmacy and spoke coherently to them about the medication she had asked her husband to collect as part of the 'errand's she had asked him to do whilst she killed the children? Is the pharmacist also lying? Why would they do this do you think?

bigboykitty · 05/09/2026 11:31

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:22

I listened to the expert evidence in court, from one of the psychiatrists that gave evidence for the prosecution. It was even mentioned in closing arguments. HTH.

Perhaps you should listen to all of the testimony given by psychiatrists in the trial. One of them had only been qualified for a month and only saw LC via Zoom. Neither prosecution psychiatrist had a specialism in perinatal psychiatry. It's very much a specialism. Do you only listen to brief excerpts that reinforce your view and ignore expert testimony that conflicts with it?

EasternStandard · 05/09/2026 11:32

The other issue with conspiracy theories is there’s going to be a retrial. They need to find jurors who can decide on evidence not internet fed conspiracy.

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 11:33

I feel very strongly that LC is guilty but I am interested to read the thoughtful and in some cases well argued posts by people who believe she was not guilty due to mental illness.

I’m not the thread police but the posts from people claiming PC murdered the children or made LC do it are offensive, lurid, fantasist nonsense, possibly from people who indulge in to much True Crime content, I don’t know. These people are trivialising an important case which will have huge implications. I wonder if people interested in a serious discussion about the case should perhaps stop engaging with them as there is clearly no interest in evidence, fact or reality for these people.

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:34

bigboykitty · 05/09/2026 11:31

Perhaps you should listen to all of the testimony given by psychiatrists in the trial. One of them had only been qualified for a month and only saw LC via Zoom. Neither prosecution psychiatrist had a specialism in perinatal psychiatry. It's very much a specialism. Do you only listen to brief excerpts that reinforce your view and ignore expert testimony that conflicts with it?

No the psychiatrist who treated her was not an expert witness, she was a fact witness. So your characterisation of her as an expert witness is completely wrong. The case of Andrea Yates was quoted, who was found NG by reason of insanity. She heard voices for months before she killed her children.

So based on the number of women who kill their children who are also suffering from severe mental illness (very low), I am believing the expert witness who stated that this is very unusual as opposed to your take.

Helbel1977 · 05/09/2026 11:35

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 10:40

Yet while intubated, she used a white board to ask the doctor

"Do I have an attorney?", "Is my body broken?", and "Are my legs straight?"

I absolutely think that she knew fine well what she was doing. I think she had the believe that nobody could look after her children as well as she could. I'm in no way qualified to diagnose but I do feel that she is narcissistic.

InAPersecutedPickle · 05/09/2026 11:37

I’m of the belief that there is no such thing as mental illness or being evil i think ‘evil’ is another MH presentation, some kind of severe personality disorder. So whatever the reason she is suffering from mental illness.

Helbel1977 · 05/09/2026 11:38

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 11:16

Ah yes, “they’d be better off dead””, the rationalisation used by suicidal family annihilators the world over.

You sound like you it you think it’s some sort of reasonable, understandable rationale. Do you?

Edited

Not at all quite the opposite, if I was on that jury I would have definitely went with murder 1.

endofthelinefinally · 05/09/2026 11:39

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 11:22

She wasn’t diagnosed with PPP before she murdered her children.

That is why I said IF. I was aware from what I have read that she was under the care of a psychiatric ?nurse and was prescribed various medications, but it wasn't clear what official diagnosis by a psychiatrist had been made.

bigboykitty · 05/09/2026 11:40

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:34

No the psychiatrist who treated her was not an expert witness, she was a fact witness. So your characterisation of her as an expert witness is completely wrong. The case of Andrea Yates was quoted, who was found NG by reason of insanity. She heard voices for months before she killed her children.

So based on the number of women who kill their children who are also suffering from severe mental illness (very low), I am believing the expert witness who stated that this is very unusual as opposed to your take.

You seem to have difficulty with reading and comprehension. I'm not sure why you're keen to argue with me about things that I didn't say.

CloverAndGrass · 05/09/2026 11:40

Helbel1977 · 05/09/2026 11:38

Not at all quite the opposite, if I was on that jury I would have definitely went with murder 1.

Ah, apologies, I misunderstood you.

dustabsorber · 05/09/2026 11:44

IMO, she is guilty of murder, maybe with mitigating circumstances. So life improsnment rather than the death penalty seems fair;

Redpaisley · 05/09/2026 11:45

Notbuiltforheat · 04/09/2026 16:57

That poor woman.

What about the poor kids?

Makkka · 05/09/2026 11:46

InAPersecutedPickle · 05/09/2026 11:37

I’m of the belief that there is no such thing as mental illness or being evil i think ‘evil’ is another MH presentation, some kind of severe personality disorder. So whatever the reason she is suffering from mental illness.

I’m of the belief that there is no such thing as mental illness or being evil i think ‘evil’ is another MH presentation, some kind of severe personality disorder. So whatever the reason she is suffering from mental illness

??

allthingsinmoderation · 05/09/2026 11:50

KellyK2026 · 04/09/2026 16:59

Not necessarily, plenty of people are saying that mental illness is being used as an excuse and that she planned it carefully before committing the act. That isn’t my thoughts, but many others think that.

Psychosis with command hallucinations is a "disease or defect" that rendered her not criminally responsible in law. In Massachusetts the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove LC wasnt suffering psychosis at the time of the killings.
I dont agree that sending PC on errands means she planned the killings beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with 11 out of 12 jurors on this.

BingoJingo · 05/09/2026 11:52

bigboykitty · 05/09/2026 11:40

You seem to have difficulty with reading and comprehension. I'm not sure why you're keen to argue with me about things that I didn't say.

To be honest your post was a bit all over the place, see below. Which prosecution psychiatrist are you referring to here? There were multiple ones - one who was the fact witness and multiple expert witnesses. You seem to have jumbled them up into one group. She saw one psychiatrist, Jennifer Tufts whom she chose. The others were expert witnesses.

Neither prosecution psychiatrist had a specialism in perinatal psychiatry. It's very much a specialism.

mulberrymilk · 05/09/2026 11:55

Monty36 · 05/09/2026 11:29

Not wanting to have a sort of argument. From what I can see there are people who say they gave the impression of being well off but were not in reality. A nanny three days a week but not full time would suggest there might be some truth in that view.
Anyway, they were not what an American would call well off. But middle of the road. And affording health care in America is the single biggest reason Americans go bankrupt. Because they cannot afford it. And cannot get the insurance or afford the premiums.

Nobody is suggesting they were the Vanderbilts. But they were able to afford her seeing a psychiatrist, Jennifer Tufts, September to December 2022; and to pay for psychiatric inpatient treatment at McLean's Hospital (where she was diagnosed by another pyschiatrist as having "major depressive disorder, severe, without psychotic features". She continued to see the first psychiatrist via virtual and face to face appointments in January. The last of which was the day before the murders, when Lyndsay denied having suicidal or homicidal thoughts, and Tufts observed no signs of psychosis.

InAPersecutedPickle · 05/09/2026 11:58

Makkka · 05/09/2026 11:46

I’m of the belief that there is no such thing as mental illness or being evil i think ‘evil’ is another MH presentation, some kind of severe personality disorder. So whatever the reason she is suffering from mental illness

??

To clarify I don’t believe that it’s a case of either mental illness OR just being evil.
As far as I’m concerned someone who presents as fully in control of themselves and causes harm to others and has not been diagnosed with or has a diagnosable MH condition is still mentally ill. It’s just some kind of not yet classified mental illness.

dustabsorber · 05/09/2026 11:59

Most people in prison have some kind of mental illness, addiction, or personality disorder. So where do we draw the line? Do we close all the prisons?

Swipe left for the next trending thread