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

Indeed.

She recorded in her diary about not being able to sleep and her ex husband reported seeing her sat on the sofa rocking back and forth with a pillow over her head

You said this as if it was partial evidence that she was so unwell as to not be responsible for murdering her children. It isn’t. People can display a lot worse symptoms than this and still be responsible for their actions.

I think she is guilty of manslaughter at least. Three innocent children lost their lives because of her. And in a horrific way.

Well the trial has collapsed as the jury could not agree, so it's not just observers who are not sure. One juror refused to go along with the other 11 apparently, but we don't know if the 11 found her G or NG.

Anyhow I believe she was very ill. Planning this was not impossible in the throes of psychosis.

There was a case in Ireland recently where the mother, also a nurse killed her three children. She was found not guilty but insane and is being held in secure psychiatric prison/hospital. It was a horribly similar case.

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57190882

Pure evil.

And it’s disgraceful the way that some people are essentially saying that mental illness is an excuse to murder three innocent children.

Those children have been totally disrespected by it being suggested that this is anything but murder and by those who are shouting down anyone who dares to suggest that it wasn’t.

There was a poster on another thread who was told that she should have more empathy as she had had PND, the implication being that anyone with PND is capable of murder when we know full well that’s not true.

If anything anyone with PND would have less empathy as they have never considered murdering their children.

As for the “you’ve never seen anyone in psychosis” line, so what people are saying here then is that anyone can act totally normally, commit a murder, claim psychosis and we should believe them because there are no signs?

Let’s be honest here, nobody who murders three children is mentally normal. Nobody who murders anyone is mentally normal. But you can be mentally abnormal while still capable of making clear decisions and carrying out your actions and knowing full well what you’re doing.

the 1 member refused to accept reasonable doubt was a legal reason to find her not guilty (even though the judge repeatedly said it was)

If you watch the trial - the investigation into the murder, and the 'confession' I think there is limited evidence that she did it or had time to do it, and her confession is mainly based on her ex's say so.

I honestly do wonder if she has been framed.

The Victorians (the actual VICTORIANS!) were more compassionate to women who killed their children when suffering from what they called “post puerperal insanity” than we are. Psychosis means ”separation from reality”, it doesn’t mean “ranting and raving incoherently”. The fact that many women have frightening thoughts but don’t act on them doesn’t mean that any women who do are evil murderers in the sense people generally mean.

And it’s disgraceful the way that some people are essentially saying that mental illness is an excuse to murder three innocent children.

Is anyone actually saying that? There is a defence (not excuse) of insanity. It isn’t available to just anyone and everyone suffering mental illness and the concept of not being responsible for your own actions has a long history.

I’m not up on this particular case to have a view or know how the law differs in Massachusetts, but if this trial ends in a not guilty verdict it is not a judgement on all women with post-partum MH problems or mental illness in general or a green light for anyone with a mental health condition to commit criminal acts.

It’s infuriating. So it appears from what has been said that this juror refuses to follow the law on the point of reasonable doubt. So it seems he has reasonable doubt but still wants to find her guilty. If he followed the law it would be a not guilty verdict.

And it’s disgraceful the way that some people are essentially saying that mental illness is an excuse to murder three innocent children

Thats legally always been the case though? The killer of the two Nottingham students and one local man hasn’t stood trial due to mental illness.

the person who recently threw a kid in a crocodile pit isn’t going to be charged with anything.

And what are you basing your opinions of what psychosis looks like on? Because you made a very strong statement that she wasnt psychotic before or after. After working in psych hospitals for over a decade, I can tell you that the things being put forward here are not reliable signs of psychosis. And killing children in the grip of psychosis has been documented since we have had notions of mental health itself.

@CapeMylar - not guilty by reason of insanity is what we usually see represented in films, but it is incredibly difficult to get this - less than 1% of people who claim this are given this sentence. And in that case, they are likely to be hospitalized for an indefinite period. There is a plea of guilty but mentally ill in most states which is more likely. And no, it does not give you carte blanche to do what you like, because it still finds you guilty.

"No one is talking about them because there's no doubt that she killed them. That appalling fact is not up for debate"

There are literally people on this thread saying she didn't do it and it was her husband......

And @NeverLookInTheMirror , I am certainly not saying that people look or act totally normal. But the things put forward on this thread - that she could have a coherent conversation, seemed to be capable of planning - those things are very possible during psychosis. Even when psychotic, hallucinations are often more obvious than delusions, and delusional thinking is much more resistant to medication. Its only when you engage someone in a thorough assessment and know what you are looking for that psychosis is obvious. Not sure anyone properly assessed her before or after the episode - in fact, she was not assessed properly when she begged to be admitted for her mental health.

The latter example you use wasn’t due to mental illness. They had an intellectual disability. They have the mind of a child in the body of an adult always. There is no medication to help and it’s no different to a child. There isn’t anything subjective about it in the same was as people claiming mental illness

That’s what I think. I don’t think what she did can be excused by mental illness.

Both of you think this because you have zero experience, qualifications or clinical exposure to actual psychosis generated from post partum
misdiagnosis and as a result prescribing medications that actually make this type of patient significantly worse.

Her mind was not her own. She had hallucinogenic delusions. Her behaviour was entirely symptomatic of a patient exposed to inappropriate meds and treatment that should have been detected.

whilst she carried out the actions, she wasn’t independently, determinately and autonomously responsible for those actions.

And another thing - if men were the ones suffering from post partum anything, there would have been clear treatment protocols in place decades ago.

I’m afraid that this case, like the Lucy Letby case here, highlights the limitations of trying medical cases in the adversarial legal system.

There’s the same problem of emotive subject of child deaths, poor lay understanding of medical issues + witch-hunt.

Really this case can only be evaluated by medical professionals experienced in mental illness, post-partum psychosis and medications.

The general ignorance in the population of mental illness in general and psychosis in particular is mindboggling.

"And another thing - if men were the ones suffering from post partum anything, there would have been clear treatment protocols in place decades ago"

Absolute rubbish. Anyone who has ever had any kind of mental illness treatment will tell you that the a series of drugs are given and in many cases they can be ineffective and a different one trialled.

Plenty of men with various conditions have ended up killing people due to poor treatment of mental illness drug induced psychosis etc despite clear treatment protocols

In this case lindsay went tol ots of different doctors took a few doses then went to a doctor to get something different when most of these medications are supposed to be taken for weeks , not months.

or maybe he doesn't have reasonable doubt and thinks she's guilty?

I have experience. A very close member of my family suffered from post partum psychosis and heartbreakingly she took her own life.

It was a work of evil on Patrick Clancy's part absolutely.

They can poll the jurors to find out how they voted. My forensic psych class was a long time ago but I think there are options if there is evidence one juror is not following instructions. But because the "jury of your peers" standard is so revered, its a risky strategy from what I remember.

I am sorry to hear that, @Autumngirl5 .

Are there no "majority verdicts" in the US? I haven't been watching or reading much about this, just following this thread TBH.