Lindsay clancy trial

[Widowwith2]

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

I am not saying Ireland is “covered in glory” whatever gave you that idea . I am just wondering is there a difference between this case and such cases or a difference in the law or something . I don’t have knowledge on the subject that’s why I asked .

I wonder too. I just can’t imagine there being a public trial for a woman who was so clearly so distressed she tried to commit suicide and ended up in a wheelchair. But I really don’t know enough about the subject

I wonder if she would have a mental health order and it not been in the public's interest. I just don't know. The NHS would be under scrutiny.

It is so different there such as the poor maternity leaves. They think Linsey's 18 weeks was fantastic and being able to afford several doctors.

As a side I hate how Edinburgh is being pronounced. Eden Berg. Do Americans really pronounce the city as Eden Burg?

Presumably because they were psychotic. There seems to be some doubt as to whether Clancy was.

Insanity in America is an "affirmative defence", it's up to the defendant to prove it. It's actually very difficult. In the UK I can think of one family annihilator who survived attempted suicide after killing his kids and he was convicted. (out in 12 years, though so there must have been some sympathy for the guy).

UK law and American law is very similar. You don't get to say "I'm mad" and walk away. You have to have no clue what you're doing.

TBH the attempted suicide works against her IMHO, it demonstrates she had an understanding of what she was doing, and that all it takes to negate an insanity defence.

Tragic situation, but I think she likely is guilty, if you let people off murder becaise they're a bit disturbed you'd be legalising murder because very few completely sane, well adjusted people commit murder.

I get that . But how come some people don’t have to prove they are insane publicly and others do. Wasn’t she attending a psychiatrist ?

Psychiatrist meetings over Zoom.

Presumably because those people are quite obviously psychcotic at the scene so it doesn't even go to trial.

In Massachusetts the burden is on the state to prove that she wasn’t psychotic/ insane. It’s not up to her to prove she was. I think this is quite different to how other states work though from what I’ve read.

Yes, it's the Commonwealth versus the [name defendant]

Just googled and you're right. She ought to be not guilty then - hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt soneone is sane.

Good place to be a family annihilator.

There isn’t really such a thing as ‘obviously psychotic’ from a clinical perspective. I think what you’re really describing is someone who may be schizophrenic who may or may not it be experience a psychotic episode. That persons behaviour would be quite different to someone who is Bi-Polar and having a psychotic episode/ hallucinations.

in LCs case she wasn’t diagnosed with BP at the time, and the cocktail of meds for other proposed conditions likely would have contributed to her decline because it’s so complex to treat. I was surprised the defence didn’t describe this more during the trial.

the psychiatrists didn’t do a good enough job in determining her diagnosis at all. They just threw meds at her.

I think in legal terms it isn't always a grey area. An obviously legally insane person will have no concept that what they've done is wrong, and will likely (fail to) explain themselves in irrational terms on the spot.

We aren't seeing utterly psychotic people in court very often AFAICT. So there is some useful screening going on.

That isn’t really true though. Someone who has reached the legal threshold to be deemed legally insane or not having criminal responsibility can be behaving completely rationally.

what do you mean by ‘obviously legally insane or utterly psychotic’? I think you’re describing a stereotypical behaviour of a ‘mad person’ that is often far from reality.

Even after a psychotic episode has occurred , people generally do remember their actions, words and thoughts at the time. What they struggle with is understanding that those thoughts weren’t real, and recovery takes a very long time. Regaining reality from psychosis is extremely difficult and they remain high risk for returning to psychosis, or suicide, if not properly treated.

who decides a person is “obviously legally insane “? The police at the scene ?

I can't remember the precise legal definition in the states (or in individual states) but whether the person understood what they were doing was was wrong is a significant part of it. Certainly someone
acting rationaly won't meet that. Attempting to escape is a pretty sure sign that someone knows they've done wrong, for instance.

Not sure you're really disagreeing with me, I'm saying some people meet the definition so obviously they do not to trial with a not guilty plea. It all very quick and procedural so there's no massive public trial.

I have no idea. Google it? Ask AI?

I don't think what I said is especially controversial.

Where did I say it was controversial? I am not trying to say that what you are saying is incorrect I actually genuinely do not know . When I google in Irish law it says a judge decides if someone is unfit to trial.

Sorry, thought you were disagreeing with me, in fact you were just asking for info.

The ultra traditional American Catholics that I know of won’t use contraception unless if it’s for medical purposes. Contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is not permitted within Catholic teaching and they consider it a mortal sin but not everyone agrees with that, as with anything in life. Many moderately or culturally Catholic couples use it.

They also don’t appear to have attended Mass on a regular basis, so I don’t believe they are quite as religiously or extremely Catholic as people are thinking. They seem to have been more culturally Catholic than religiously Catholic, if that makes sense.

Just watching 'The Death of the Pastors Wife' that has echoes of Lindsay Clancy. He managed to make her believe and everyone else aroudn her she had mental health issues. But clearly it was all his narcissistic abuse and influence. I wonder if that was happening with LC as well?

I may be projecting but I know my narc ex told me, my children, my family, my kids school, my doctors and me that I was batshit crazy. Everyone believed it, including me - except my family who were deserpately trying to get me to listen and to leave. I did eventually, but it took me years and a lot of therapy and family support to realise what he had done to me. Was this happening here???

@Longlostlove Patrick can't be terribly devout -

1. he didn't stick to his marriage vows re "in sickness and in health" by divorcing Lindsay.
2. he married a new wife even when his existing wife was still alive. That's expressly forbidden in the bible.
3. suspect he was having an emotional affair at the very least with the new wife.

@seanconneryseyebrow Death of the Pastor's Wife. That husband is a no man of God, he's a sexual predator using his influence in the church to abuse women! I also hold him responsible for her death.

"Patrick can't be terribly devout -he didn't stick to his marriage vows re "in sickness and in health" by divorcing Lindsay."

To be fair, many marriages fail when a child dies; most people could not stay married to a woman / spouse who killed all 3.

For all we know, he got an annulment. As Lindsay demonstrates there's worse things than not being devout. And a crisis or loss of faith after such loss is understandable, surely.

I think death did them part.

I think we will hear today. Who thinks it will be not guilty? I do. And not by insanity. I think (hope) this will lead to the police investigation being reopened and Patrick being a suspect. I do hope so. Naive of me perhaps.