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

That’s not an insult, it’s a comment on exactly the same media phenomenon that we saw with the Lucy Letby case, Where people prioritise the need to kick a woman’s head in over rational evaluation of the evidence,

Mental illness and criminal court cases should not be an issue of “support”. This is not a football match or a reality TV show.

Cos she was handcuffed to the bed.

Have you watched the testimonies of the psychiatrists that treated her? They openly claim they’ve never treated anyone with postpartum psychosis nor knew much about it - this is huge as it shows the jury that they perhaps weren’t even qualified to treat her or ask relevant questions to determine how unwell she was. They openly admit that they didn’t think about how giving her meds for postpartum depression might have negative influence on her bipolar disorder as they didn’t have experience treating someone with those two disorders. Nor did they run all
the relevant checks (such as looking at thyroid function which can apparently influence someone’s likelihood of developing psychosis). They say they didn’t look at her medical records and took LC’s word for how much medication she was on (why on earth you’d take the word of someone who has just checked themselves into a mental facility without consulting her medical records, I do not know). It’s alright saying ‘well 11 doctors said this’ when, actually, the testimonies show just how disjointed the care was. So far they’ve not had one psychiatrist take the stand who sounds competent. It’s a losing game if you’re trying to prove that LC didn’t have psychosis when even the doctors treating her didnt know what
postpartum psychosis looks like.

See if I woke up in a hospital bed handcuffed, I would ask what on earth I had done, not whether I had a lawyer.

Have you watched the testimonies of the psychiatrists that treated her? They openly claim they’ve never treated anyone with postpartum psychosis nor knew much about it - this is huge as it shows the jury that they perhaps weren’t even qualified to treat her or ask relevant questions to determine how unwell she was. They openly admit that they didn’t think about how giving her meds for postpartum depression might have negative influence on her bipolar disorder as they didn’t have experience treating someone with those two disorders. Nor did they run all
the relevant checks (such as looking at thyroid function which can apparently influence someone’s likelihood of developing psychosis). They say they didn’t look at her medical records and took LC’s word for how much medication she was on (why on earth you’d take the word of someone who has just checked themselves into a mental facility without consulting her medical records, I do not know). It’s alright saying ‘well 11 doctors said this’ when, actually, the testimonies show just how disjointed the care was. So far they’ve not had one psychiatrist take the stand who sounds competent. It’s a losing game if you’re trying to prove that LC didn’t have psychosis when even the doctors treating her didnt know what
postpartum psychosis looks like.

For the posters who are just here to bicker - I’m not interested, sorry.

you've no idea what you'd ask. If you've been resuscitated and had blood transfusions, and had just had a psychotic episode, I'm sure you wouldn't exactly be thinking logically or rationally.

So why post as you did? It’s your wording posters are responding to.

But this is what I’m saying, I’m Massachusetts Law the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LC wasn’t experiencing psychosis as the defence has argued. So far they’ve haven’t done that. They are unable to do that. If the care LC was well organised, the relevant tests were conducted and she was being treated by specialists in postpartum depression/psychosis and they all said that she wasn’t experiencing psychosis then you might have an argument. If anything the case has shown just how poor mental health care is for postpartum women in the US.

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings. This can be used to show that that was perhaps trying to make sense of what she was experiencing.

People keep saying that she will be detained for life either way but I don’t think this is correct. Many killers who are detained in psychiatric hospital are released at some point, are they not?

But this is what I’m saying, I’m Massachusetts Law the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that LC wasn’t experiencing psychosis as the defence has argued. So far they’ve haven’t done that. They are unable to do that. If the care LC was well organised, the relevant tests were conducted and she was being treated by specialists in postpartum depression/psychosis and they all said that she wasn’t experiencing psychosis then you might have an argument. If anything the case has shown just how poor mental health care is for postpartum women in the US.

If you want to fixate on the planning aspect based on her search history, you might also be interested to know that she was searching for information about hallucinations in conjunction with intrusive thoughts well before the killings. This can be used to show that that was perhaps trying to make sense of what she was experiencing.

I guess it depends on the crime, if there mental condition is treatable, if they still pose a risk to themselves or others or if they can be housed a a less secure environment, either way she'll need long term care and medical supervision, being paralysed she can't, thankfully, live on her own in society ever again.

They were a wealthy family, able to afford inpatient treatment for her at McLean Hospital, plus all the other doctors, psychiatrists, and therapists she saw.

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.

I was in a locked ward in the US for five days 30 years ago. Only ‘basic’ psychiatric treatment and the bill was £10,000. One of the other inmates was
paying for ECT because it was cheaper and meant they could be in and out quickly.

Choosing to fry your brain because it is the cheapest option. The thought of it still fills me
with horror.

Even the well off in the US make medical decisions based on cost so the ‘they could afford it’ argument just doesn’t sustain.

Money is also the reason why there are not more of the desperately needed and absolutely amazing mother and baby units mentioned upthread in the uk.

Isn't that like saying anyone who commits a heinous crime is mentally ill? If you're suggesting she should be excused on this basis then so should every other murderer. Charles Manson for example- he was obviously a nut job.