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

Why would a nurse also have to google to find out where the carotid artery is?

We don't know who googled them

Heart crises can come out of the blue. Likewise mental state can suddenly deteriorate resulting in harm to self or others, which are key criteria for sectioning.

Indeed, but it’s strange how hers happened most significantly when he was out the house (planned by her so not accidentally….!!)

What’s the chances that was completely a random act and timing…. I say not so much a random act!

It is a very strange case but I'd give her the benefit of the doubt - she was suffering severe mental illness and doing everything that she could to get help. Seeing various professionals, going into hospital, arranging for her mother to stay with her for a time, and taking various prescribed drugs, some of which increase the likelihood of suicide. Her husband and mother in law both testified what a wonderful caring mother she was, and work colleagues said she was a great maternity nurse. So why would she suddenly become 'evil' and kill her kids? It makes no sense. Experts testified that even if she had psychosis she could still do the normal, mundane things, like arranging a takeaway. So if I was a juror I'd go for the mental illness option.

I wasn't saying that was their entire case. I was trying to point out the basics which you seem to have missed.

I won't repeat all of your multiple posts asserting the reverse and/or all sorts of gibberish, but just a few lines where you completely contradict yourself regarding what you say is Massachusetts's law -

From the point of view of the defence, her judgement was impaired due to declining mental health. Both arguments can be backed up with evidence. However, Massachusetts law does favour the defence because the prosecution have to prove that LC wasn’t mentally unwell (despite the fact there’s extensive evidence that she was).

Again, Under Massachusetts Law the prosecution HAVE to prove that LC wasn’t mentally ill when she carried out the killings.

But under Massachusetts law, it doesn’t matter whether it was postpartum depression or psychosis.

Well, clearly it does and you have misunderstood their laws. Nobody on the prosecution is disputing she had postpartum depression.

Here you are spelling it out. This is obviously incorrect.

It’s still no excuse to murder 3 children. No one would have the same feeling as ‘poor women, ‘poor man’ had they murdered one of their own or someone random in the street and said they were suffering from psychosis.

she wasn’t even diagnosed with it prior to the killings. Every dr she saw said they saw no signs to say they believed she was suffering with ppp. She was discharged from hospital just over 3 weeks before the murders with an all clear. After telling them she had no thoughts of harming herself or others. The first time she mentioned any thoughts of harming the kids was in December prior to the murders in January.
psychosis has only been mentioned after the killings.

I think she may have been suffering with depression or anxiety of some form. She was very protective of the children and didn’t want them staying over at anyone else’s home. She had a fear that no one else could care for them the way she could.
there was clearly an issue. She wasn’t taking her medication correctly, wasn’t happy with what she was given and said she didn’t like it before giving it a chance to work or her body to adjust to it.

i personally think she planned to kill the kids and herself, but when he failed to kill herself she made up the ‘voices’ she said she heard telling her to do it.

Fascinating that more than 11 treating doctors, several of them psychiatrists, several of them working in the field of post-partum mental health, came to a different diagnosis to you - who have never met her, let alone attempted to treat her - and all have firmly stated she showed no signs of psychosis.

She was prescribed multiple medications but didn't take any of them consistently enough to see results (many of these medications start taking effect only after 4-5 weeks of continuous use). As a nurse, she knew this. She did not adhere to any of her medications - execept for the benzos.

She was discharged after one day from Women and Infant's hospital because team the clinical team in the postpartum depression program believed her symptoms were "more pharmacologically induced than purely depressive."

She was referred to three other hospitals but did not follow up on the referrals.

She was admitted to psychiatric facilities on multiple occasions but checked herself out of them after a few days. She did not go to therapy consistently outside of these brief stays.

She told her major treating psychiatrist the day before she murdered her children that she had no thoughts of suicide or homicide. She was playing in the snow with the children, building them a snowman, before she sent her husband off on that series of erands - the timing of which she mapped out on her phone prior - that allowed her the window to strangle them one after the other.

On waking in hospital, her first thoughts were for her own welfare - should my get a lawyer, is my body broken, how are my legs - not her children.

Funny kind of psychosis.

How? She told Patrick and her mother in December she had thoughts of harming her kids. She was fully aware then. She could have easily have said please take the children and keep them safe or committed herself back in to hospital. She said she was fine to the hospital when she committed herself for a few days and was discharged just over 3 weeks before she killed them. She showed no signs of ppp at that time.

It has been stated in the trial if you’ve watched it, the drs on the stand have stated quite clearly there where no signs of PPP prior, she was not diagnosed with ppp prior and they have stated on the stand that the facility she is being held at now, she is doing well, engaging, has heard no voices prior or after the event.

how can a diagnosis of PPP be given if no one saw her in the throes of a psychotic break? No one was present at the killings but her and the children. So the diagnosis is based on an assumption of what she did and her actions in reality. Otherwise you’d have to come to the conclusion that to do something like that and not be seriously mentally unstable you must be evil.

She missed it though? Maybe that was why.

She was a midwife so usually at other end. Probably wanted to refresh her memory.

Who is lindsey clancy?

Mental illness, just pure evil or manipulative planner this person should bot be allowed near other children or vulnerable people they could hoodwink or coerce or as in this case, murder. May be the tormented soul should face the consequences they put the children through? This case will haunt me till the day I die. The labels we now give to middle class dilemmas where there are plenty of doctors or professionals to support or evaluate ( they were not dirt poor living in isolation or ignorant as having education) children were not given a chance to live their lives so I can only prescribe the same solution to the mother.

It's very basic anatomy, no medical person would have to google it

Seriously though, anyone who does something as horrific as this(whether pre-planned or not) has got to be mentally ill. No sane person would ever do this - whether planned or not.

Have you ever experienced post-psychosis, or supported someone through a prolonged period of severe mental illness?
One thing I’ve learned is that severe mental illness doesn’t always look the way people expect it to.
Someone can be in the depths of a serious episode and still appear completely lucid. They can hold a normal conversation, make plans, organise things, communicate clearly and appear to know exactly what they’re doing.
Being able to “plan” or appear rational doesn’t necessarily mean someone isn’t severely unwell. Psychosis isn’t always obvious from the outside, and someone can retain certain abilities while their perception of reality is significantly altered.
Even after the episode, they may appear completely lucid and be able to talk about what happened, sometimes with a surprisingly clear memory of events.
I think there’s a huge misconception that someone experiencing severe mental illness must constantly appear confused, irrational or completely detached from reality.
That simply isn’t always the case.
Sometimes the most difficult episodes are the ones that other people don’t recognise because the person appears so completely “normal.”
Mental illness can be incredibly complex, and you can’t always see what is happening beneath the surface

One thing I’ve learned is that severe mental illness doesn’t always look the way people expect it to.
Someone can be in the depths of a serious episode and still appear completely lucid. They can hold a normal conversation, make plans, organise things, communicate clearly and appear to know exactly what they’re doing.
Being able to “plan” or appear rational doesn’t necessarily mean someone isn’t severely unwell. Psychosis isn’t always obvious from the outside, and someone can retain certain abilities while their perception of reality is significantly altered.
Even after the episode, they may appear completely lucid and be able to talk about what happened, sometimes with a surprisingly clear memory of events.
I think there’s a huge misconception that someone experiencing severe mental illness must constantly appear confused, irrational or completely detached from reality.
That simply isn’t always the case.
Sometimes the most difficult episodes are the ones that other people don’t recognise because the person appears so completely “normal.”
Mental illness can be incredibly complex, and you can’t always see what is happening beneath the surface

We need to remember she has since been diagnosed as BI-Polar. BPD and the wrong medication can also lead to psychosis. Combining that with PPD and the meds for that was disastrous.

She was failed because they didn’t assess her properly. They treated the symptoms, without identifying the true cause.

And sadly. This happens all the time. Especially in women.

She barely took any of her prescribed meds, and certainly not for any length of time when she did try them (apart from the benzos).

That is a presumption. You can’t say it’s fact without quizzing every medical profession. You think it’s true, but in a court of law “Disappointed100 said so” wouldn’t hold much sway.

She was given the medication she refused to take it you can't force people to take medication the doctor can prescribe it but they can't shove pills down your throat

But surely her refusal to take it is part of being mentally unwell? I don’t know what the answer is but i believe non compliance with meds is quite common. How this is monitored I don’t know. But I know a friend who was unwell and not taking her meds was sectioned and yes she then was forced to take them.

It’s not that many people don’t understand psychosis. It’s that many people do not believe LC was in psychosis. The main “evidence” that she was appears to be that she murdered her children and that she says she was. Many people do not find this convincing.

Do you believe all parents who murder their children should be found not guilty by reason of insanity then? Just mothers maybe?