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

They don’t believe she was in it because they don’t understand it. Thus they parrot the prosecution line without appreciating that it’s legal argument rather than a psychiatric one.

I will give you an example of a case that I have personal experience of: where a person with diagnosed schizophrenia killed another person when they were off their meds driven by auditory hallucinations. The prosecution case found a psychiatrist prepared to testify that they weren’t schizophrenic they were just a bad person. That served a legal end but not a psychiatric one.

This is why an adversarial court is not an appropriate place to evaluate the issue of diagnosis of LC. It would need a multidisciplinary panel involving psychiatrists specialising in bipolar and ppp, psychiatric nurses, specialists in women’s health.

We’re going round in circles. Understanding psychosis does not automatically mean you accept the claim that LC was in psychosis.

She should be locked up for life, whether that is in an asylum or jail is the only debate in my mind.

Well they’re never going to find jury immune to a witch hunt. that is actually a bigger problem.

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.

Why don’t you accept that she was having a psychotic episode? What was the evidence that gets you past ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?

Do you believe that media coverage and public demonstrations, social media etc have been predominantly “witch-hunting” of LC (by which I assume you mean believing she is guilty of first degree murder) or supportive?

I would say overwhelmingly the latter.

Do you believe that media coverage and public demonstrations, social media etc have been predominantly “witch-hunting” of LC (by which I assume you mean believing she is guilty of first degree murder) or supportive?

I would say overwhelmingly the latter.

I haven’t seen any evidence that she was. She murdered her children and she claimed to hear a voice telling her to do so. That isn’t proof to me. I have seen lots of evidence which suggests pre-planning of murder. What evidence have you seen that she was having a psychotic episode?

But she will be, her old life is over, wherever she is sent she will be looked after by staff, she is paralysed so will need extra care wherever she is. The whole situation is tragic, her and her ex are seeking damages for the failings to cover the costs of her future care, does that mean if she's sent to a psych ward it will be a private facility, no one knows until the next trial is over.

We’re going round in circles. Understanding psychosis does not automatically mean you accept the claim that LC was in psychosis.

I’d say there is support for both sides, however the lower you go down the food chain, the lower quality the news coverage, the less intelligent thé commentators, the greater witch hunt. Those are the ones who tend to shout the loudest in any case. SM is very much dominated by kill the witch and the quality of the commentary is risible. Notwithstanding the women who have attempted to share their own experiences of postpartum illness.

But she will be, her old life is over, wherever she is sent she will be looked after by staff, she is paralysed so will need extra care wherever she is. The whole situation is tragic, her and her ex are seeking damages for the failings to cover the costs of her future care, does that mean if she's sent to a psych ward it will be a private facility, no one knows until the next trial is over.

What do you mean by “lower down the food chain”?

I haven’t made any kind of diagnosis as I am not medical and neither are you. All you’ve done is parrot thé prosecution line without understanding it. You don’t even seem to be aware that the fact that she was seen by 11 different people some of whom were not consultant level, all prescribing different things with no integration, was precisely a failure of psychiatric care.

Thus you choose blame Clancy as it fulfils an emotional need for a witch hunt.

The point about side effects of medication that you have failed to grasp is that they can be so intense that people can’t cope with them. It’s all very well to say you need to give some time to work but if someone is in mental health crisis and the meds make them worse, the upshot could be their death and in this case tragically the death of their children.

That is why integrated psychiatric care, correct diagnosis, and the avoidance of patients with being pushed from pillar post - randomly prescribed medication some of which was in the same class thus unlikely to work if the previous ones in that class failed by people some of whom are not qualified psychiatrists - is so important.

I’d say there is support for both sides, however the lower you go down the food chain, the lower quality the news coverage, the less intelligent thé commentators, the greater witch hunt. Those are the ones who tend to shout the loudest in any case. SM is very much dominated by kill the witch and the quality of the commentary is risible. Notwithstanding the women who have attempted to share their own experiences of postpartum illness.

Why would she ask for a lawyer if she didn’t remember what happened?

This is what I find so interesting. So many people will automatically assume a benign explanation for every incident which could otherwise suggest guilt even when the benign explanation is unlikely or in this case nonsensical. Why does this case cause people to take those approach?

I’m sure you can work that out.

Thus you choose blame Clancy as it fulfils an emotional need for a witch hunt.

You are using a few ad hominem insults in your responses to people you disagree with. If you are so confident you are correct, perhaps you could stick to the subject at hand.

No, I’m not sure what you mean? Are you talking about class? wealth? education level? political views?

If you’re going to talk about people in a way which indicates you see some people as inferior to others, I think it reasonable to ask for an explanation of who you believe these inferior people are.

No-one on this thread seems to have thought through how prison for someone who was paralysed is actually going to work.

I don't think being mentally ill excuses her to be honest. Many women suffer post partum depression. Some women suffer post partum psychosis. Very very few of them MURDER their children.

She knew she was unwell. She had thought previously that she was capable of hurting them. She could have walked away and didn't

I’m sorry if you can’t work it out, but I’m not interested in sealioning.

I’m sorry if you can’t work it out, but I’m not interested in sealioning.

You’re not making much sense here. I get you want to put LC at the centre of who you support. Not everyone will feel similarly.