Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

Has anyone else been following the lindsay clancy trial? What is everyone thinkin? I dont think she done it

She actually arranged for her husband to go out (further than their normal restaurant and she googled the journey time to see how much time she had.) She chose the moment. The proves she could conform when she chose to

She also took each child separately and killed them separately so they didn’t see what she was doing to the others. So this shows she knew it was a bad thing; something her children might try to escape from; and something she didn’t want them to see being done to their siblings.

She received a phone call from PC and gave no sign of being insane during that call or psychotic. She also made no mention of what she was doing or had done, which suggests she knew he wouldn’t be pleased - to put it mildly. This unexpected phone call also didn’t shake her out of the ‘hearing the voice’.

Presumably the supposed voice didn’t tell her how to kill the children yet she chose appropriately sized exercise bands and laid them out ready. Not an obvious choice if you allegedly can’t resist a voice compelling you to kill your children. It’s not a choice that’s going to pop into your head on the spur of the moment when the voice starts ordering you.

I’m not sure I agree that those are general views on both sides. The actual killing of the children is horrific and I don’t dwell on that as it doesn’t need any thought to know how awful it was. Despite it being awful, if I believed LC was insane at the time, I’d understand it.

For me, the issue is that I don’t believe she was unable to conform to the law; I don’t believe she was unaware that killing the children was wrong; and I don’t believe she heard the voice.

The problem isn’t so much that no-one is impartial. If I was a juror and heard evidence that showed she was insane, I’d change my mind. The issue is as @DannyDeever identified: it’s ridiculous that the prosecution has to prove she wasn’t insane. The presumption should be that people are sane until proved otherwise. Massachusetts has it the wrong way round IMO, and they’re an outlier.

Yeah I think it's wrong the default position is to prove she was insane when both prosecution and defence concede she physically carried out the murders.

But from what I've seen from interviews there were jurors that had a bias. Those with medical backgrounds acting as mini experts in a bid to sway others, but also the one juror who heldout seemed unable to explain his decision clearly and succinctly, which makes me think he made his mind up in spite of what was presented to him.

I think you meant the opposite @rubixsphere In Massachusetts, unlike other states, they will take you at your word that you’re insane and then the prosecution have to prove you were sane when you committed the crime. In other states, the burden is on the defendant to prove they were insane so not criminally responsible.

Yes, some of the things the jurors who have spoken out have said have been shocking, eg she was a good mum so couldn’t have done it. I also read that one of them had been part of a support group for another woman in similar circumstances and so was biased. A group seems to have bullied persuaded others into agreeing with them, except for the one juror who refused to be browbeaten.

Some people who kill themselves could indeed be considered delusional if their beliefs were fixed enough, but it just doesn't come into play as a question legally because suicide isn't a crime.

As previously discussed that does not prove that she was able to conform her behaviour to the law at the time of the killings, and acting in a way which will allow you to carry out your plans also is not proof that someone can conform their behaviour to the law.

Also the mental illness only needs to have deprived them of substantial capacity to either obey the law or appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions, not complete, total or absolute deprivation, meaning someone could retain some ability to conform their behaviour to the law or know right from wrong, and still be found not criminally responsible.

. If she'd committed this crime in the UK, the rest of America or most of Europe she'd be convicted. The only reason her guilt is up for debate is the location she committed the crime.

Disagree. I'm Irish and believe that the prosecution experts would have agreed she was not criminally responsible like in the case of Deirdre Morley.

Yes, and people complain that those who use the fact she was a good mother as a piece of evidence in trying to determine what would happen and say they are emotionally driven but if the evidence showed she had previously been an abusive mother then that evidence would also be used and difficult to get past also.

This issue has divided people for millennia, a law had to be drawn somewhere legally and so they had to point to some functional incapacity when deciding someone was not criminally responsible, however in real life it's not so easy to determine if they crossed it because the evidence is inside that persons head, it's only natural that people will draw on their own experiences because it's a very difficult thing to assess.

Morley was diagnosed as psychotic, so totally different.

You said knowing right from wrong wasn't the only test, (presumably) conceding she did known right from wrong and introduced the "irresistible urge vs urge that wasn't resisted" test. I don't think you ever put that to bed, and the evidence is she was able to control her urge is overwhelming.

I'm skeptical of your interpretation of "substantial".

Hardly shocking, if she had been an abusive mother then many jurors would have said well she was abusive anyway so this was murder.

The jury came back after 4 days saying they could not reach a unanimous decision, the judge sent them back, they came back again saying they again couldn't reach a verdict and were given the dynamite charge, which legal experts said can put a ton of pressure on the jurors to reach a verdict, so you can't blame it all on the jurors.

We've already discussed this, Deirdre Morley was only retrospectively diagnosed as psychotic after the killings, not before, just like Lindsay Clancy.

The test is whether the mental illness substantially deprived the person of their ability to conform to the law or not.

Well my interpretation is correct.

“Whether a defendant is to be called sane or insane cannot depend on any certain measurement. By employing the words ‘substantial capacity’ ... the test emphasizes that any incapacity is not sufficient, but that total incapacity is also unnecessary.”

https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/422/422mass731.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Lindsey Clancy has never been diagnosed with psychosis by any professional.

Dr. Spinelli diagnosed Lindsay with Bipolar Disorder I, severe, with psychosis and anxious distress, with postpartum onset and I believe the jury got her report.

Dr. Resnick said she was frankly psychotic and clearly psychotic on the day.

Isn't the discussion now just moot points? I shall start another thread soon when this one fills up. Meanwhile for the poster who accused the jurors of bullying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74k13kpv2no

John 11:35

They are defence experts! Not clinicians treating her.

As for bi polar disorder I had a friend who was stalked by someone with bipolar disorder, so I know a thing or three about that.

At 5:05 this juror says the two holdouts felt attacked.

We don't know much about the clinicians treating her afterwards, we know they did diagnose her with bipolar II. They may not have been tasked with doing a retrospective evaluation of her mental state at the time of the killings though so they wouldn't be diagnosing her as being psychotic.

Deirdre Morley was sent to the central mental hospital in Ireland which is Irelands national Ireland's national forensic psychiatric hospital, the vast majority of people there are either people found guilty by NGRI, people who are unfit to stand trial, people sent to be forensically assessed and prisoners who have become mentally ill and need treatment.

The setting itself is forensic, and forensic experts were directly involved in assessing her and some forensic psychiatric personnel from the hospital were also involved in her ongoing care.

Well, it is shocking because the jury weren’t deciding whether she’d committed the killings, but whether she was sane and knew right from wrong. Whether she was a good mother or a bad mother has no effect on whether she was psychotic or not.

They were supposed to be judging her sanity/criminal responsibility not whether she was a good mother or not. I actually think she was a good mother but I think she wasn’t in psychosis when she killed them. That’s my opinion that I’ve formed from what I’ve read and heard. Her being a good mother isn’t relevant to that as it’s not evidence of psychosis or sanity. Good people can do bad things and make bad choices. That doesn’t automatically mean they’re insane.

Legal experts discussed this in depth at the time when the jurors were sent back to deliberate after they said they couldn't reach a verdict, and were then sent back on the dynamite charge.

They said that this charge has this effect on jurors. They feel immense pressure to reach a verdict which can lead to things like this.

If Mother Bs thoughts become so fixed on and she genuinely believes that this is the only way then her mental illness has taken on psychotic features

It was this bit I was taking issue with. People can have fixed beliefs and hyperfocus on things but that does not mean they’re psychotic nor does it mean their illness has taken on psychotic features. Your Mother B believes the only answer is suicide and taking her children with her. That’s not psychosis. Altruistic suicide exists, mercy killings exist. Mother B might have been backed into a corner, be suffering abuse from which she can’t see a way out, and plenty of other possibilities too.

Yes. DM has been diagnosed as Psychotic. LM seeked out two experts willing to say she was Psychotic in court for money.

I'm damn sure the prosecution experts said she wasn't psychotic and they haven't convinced you!

It's not though, so be honest, if she had a history of being a horrible abusive mother you know and I know and everyone knows that most people would seriously struggle to get past that, they would think that well she had a habit of being abusive and was often cruel, that was who she was as a person, so this was murder.

It works the exact same in reverse, there's nothing shocking about it. It's human.

Yes because the pathway was different, she went straight into a forensic psychiatric hospital.

This came up because you said that she would have been convicted if this happened in the UK or the rest of Europe. I said she wouldn't have, it would be like the Deirdre Morley case, she would have went straight to our CMH and been forensically evaluated and they would have said she was psychotic at the time.

Just checking you know the prosecution experts also got paid right?

Resnick had previously been hired for the Casey Anythony defence and said he could not be helpful to them, so Resnick certainly isn't all about the money.

This.

I'm staggered at how much time some of the jurors spent talking about irrelevances, seemingly unaware of the irrelevance.

I never want to be in front of a jury.

I think you’re referring to me? I’ve read that and watched interviews. They’re the interviews I’m talking about. Other jurors were using their phones too. Other jurors initially disagreed that LC was NGRI. This man wasn’t persuaded. He had his opinion and held on to it. Jurors are entitled to form their own opinion and vote accordingly.

They thought she might have Bipolar 2 not 1. Those were called by the defence. Here’s a professional who didnt think she was psychotic:

https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-mental-health-50bc0cd6e8bfb5d15cfbcdf9907ca1b2

.