Lindsay Clancy trial continued.

[placemats]

Previous thread here.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5565097-lindsay-clancy-trial?page=10&reply=154694959

kkloo: Nothing's stopping them from claiming it, but they're highly unlikely to succeed.

DD: Yes. Because there would likely be overwhelming evidence that they failed the McHoul test. Things like an absence of history of psychosis, no diagnosis of psychosis, detailed and elaborate planning of the crime, perhaps they might send lucid texts and a lucid phone call during the crime? Maybe waking up and immediately asking about legal representation?
Is that the sort of evidence that would mean a false claim would be unlikely to succeed?
Or did you have some other evidence of sanity in mind that would typically be present to give them away?

kkloo: Well Danny in a large amount of crimes there's an ordinary, comprehensible motive which would be a huge piece of evidence that people would look at, but I didn't think that needed to be pointed out.

So unless there's a proven motive the defendant is NGRI? I'm sure that's not what you mean. So what other evidence would you think would typically mean that false claims of insanity would be "highly unlikely to succeed"? I'll help you out: Pretty much any bit of evidence from the LC case.

Also in this case I think there was a motive, she wanted to kill.herself and she thought her children would be better off dead than without her, which I think is pretty typical with family annihilators.

So unless there's a proven motive the defendant is NGRI? I'm sure that's not what you mean.

If you're sure it's not what I mean then why did you ask?

No I didn't mean that. They may well not be criminally responsible, but we were talking about whether the defence would succeed, and if there is ordinary, comprehensible motive then the jurors are far more likely to give that weight over any apparent illness.

So what other evidence would you think would typically mean that false claims of insanity would be "highly unlikely to succeed"? I'll help you out: Pretty much any bit of evidence from the LC case.

If for example they had a history of violence and abuse, that would also go against them.

Also in this case I think there was a motive, she wanted to kill.herself and she thought her children would be better off dead than without her

Yes well everyone believes that this was her reason, but the question is whether it was a motive or a psychotic motive and many believe that at the time of the killings her mental state was psychotic or that the CW did not convince them that she retained the capacity to obey the law.

If for example they had a history of violence and abuse, that would also go against them.

You regard violence and abuse as evidence of sanity!

Yes well everyone believes that this was her reason, but the question is whether it was a motive or a psychotic motive and many believe that at the time of the killings her mental state was psychotic or that the CW did not convince them that she retained the capacity to obey the law.

You said that a motive is proof of sanity. I agree. You're not describing psychosis at all.

You said a false claim of insanity was highly unlikely to succeed. Why? You can't give any reason. Why can't you? Because all of the obvious things that apply to someone faking insanity apply to LC. You can't name a single one, because anything you say will apply to LC.

You regard violence and abuse as evidence of sanity!

Why are you trying to twist my words in every comment?

I didn't say or imply that at all.

You said that a motive is proof of sanity. I agree.

No I didn't and you know I didn't.

You're acting like a primary school kid here.

You said a false claim of insanity was highly unlikely to succeed. Why? You can't give any reason. Why can't you?

What are you on about?
I've told you they are highly unlikely to succeed if there is an ordinary comprehensible motive.

I assumed it would be fairly obvious why that would make it less likely to succeed, but seeing as you need to be spoonfed it would make it less likely to succeed because jurors will generally look at that piece of evidence and decide (rightly or wrongly) that it was for that reason that they committed the crime, not due to mental illness.

I also said if someone has a history of violence and abuse then it would be less likely to succeed, can you think of any reasons for that? Presumably not even though it's very obvious and on topic with the stuff we were all discussing on the last pages of the first thread.

Sigh. OK. Let's start from scratch.

kkloo: Nothing's stopping them from claiming it, but they're highly unlikely to succeed.

Yes. Because there would likely be overwhelming evidence that they failed the McHoul test. Things like an absence of history of psychosis, no diagnosis of psychosis, detailed and elaborate planning of the crime, perhaps they might send lucid texts and a lucid phone call during the crime? Maybe waking up and immediately asking about legal representation?
Is that the sort of evidence that would mean a false claim would be unlikely to succeed?
Or did you have some other evidence of sanity in mind that would typically be present to give them away?

NBC are saying now that the hold out juror had history of domestic violence against his ex wife, his nephew called the police when he witnessed it, last year the nephew took out a restraining order against him after the uncle battered him for ruining his life for calling the police.and this was still active when he was selected as a juror.

@DannyDeever I've already told you 2 major things that would make it less likely to succeed so no I'm not interested in starting again.

Here’s an example of a woman who actually was diagnosed with post partum psychosis and was much more likely to have been irresponsible for her actions than Lindsay Clancy. But even she didn’t get found not guilty by reason of insanity. She’s locked up in prison.

When the police arrived she was ‘speaking in tongues’.

All of this sympathy for LC is misguided at best. The evidence does not point to her being criminally insane from the reading I’ve done about the case. And people empathise with her for some strange reason and even identify with her which is sickening. Being mentally unhealthy is one thing but imo she knew what she was doing was wrong.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/national/deasia-watkins-pleads-guilty-to-murder-decapitating-her-infant-daughter

But even she didn’t get found not guilty by reason of insanity.

She pleaded guilty so they didn't have the option of finding her NGRI.

Originally she pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and was deemed incompetent to stand trial until she recovered.

However there was conflicting reports about her mental illness at the time and the prosecution said they had a lot of evidence that she was aware of the wrongfulness of her acts at the time, so at the time of the trial she ultimately pleaded guilty.

One piece of evidence the prosecution had that she understood the wrongfulness of her act was that she told police that she had put the knife in the baby's hand so people would think the baby had done it rather than her.

And in Ohio the legal test is different than Massachussets, it is at the time of the offence, because of a severe mental disease or defect, she did not know the wrongfulness of her acts.

Whereas in Massachussets you can know the wrongfulness of your acts, but if your mental illness deprived you of your ability to obey the law then you are not criminally responsible.

LOL. The very fact that she put the knife in the baby’s hand is part of what shows she was in psychosis imo. Because every sane adult knows full well that nobody is ever going to believe that a 3 month old baby could decapitate herself with a knife.

In any other state LC would be locked up now. And she should be. She should not be afforded the opportunity to have more children that she harms.

I didn't say she wasn't in psychosis though did I?

And she didn't actually plead NGRI, she pleaded guilty, if she had pleaded NGRI it is very possible that a jury would have found her NGRI.

Unfortunately jurors can be anyone. I think there is a good case for professional jurors. ATM they don’t demonstrably have to meet any kind of ethical criteria or knowledge . That’s why they call it a jury of peers.

Just like with Casey Anthony, the defence can introduce some piece of information which can’t be proven but sounds like it could be true ‘look over here, jury’ and it muddies the waters enough for the guilty person to get away with it.

One of the female jurors actually said that the reason she voted LC not guilty was because she felt LC had killed her children because everything got too much for her and she needed help. So she agrees with the prosecution then! She clearly did not believe that LC was insane. So she should have voted guilty.

When I engaged with both and pointed out one was bollocks and the other applied to LC you rowed back, hence I said "start again".

You said:
Nothing's stopping them from claiming it, but they're highly unlikely to succeed.

So you've conceded it's typically entirely possible to prove BRD someone is sane but you can't say how because all the kinds of evidence that would normally be used to to that apply to LC in buckets.

So the hold out juror was a black man. And Tiktok are making a thing of this. Maybe Im being dim but what has that got to do with anything??? Confused.

One piece of evidence the prosecution had that she understood the wrongfulness of her act was that she told police that she had put the knife in the baby's hand so people would think the baby had done it rather than her

Well, that’s obviously a crazy thing to think, but if that’s evidence she understood it was wrong, why isn’t LC sending PC out on an unnecessary errand in order to get time alone to kill the children evidence of LC knowing killing children is wrong? (Note - “unnecessary” because both the pharmacy and restaurant deliver). She also googled to check how long he’d be away at the unusual restaurant choice, suggesting pre-planning.

It has noting to do with it. People are trying to dig up dirt on him because they are obsessed with trying to prove LC was a victim and not a narcissistic killer.

But he wasn’t the one on trial.

completely irrelevant and the sort of racist crap that comes up more and more a we shift to a lense of right wing hate speech. Of more relevance is whether he really has the history of domestic violence which is alleged. If so, I think there are serious questions about whether he was honest on his juror questionnaire. Not sure of the implications of this but seems like that must be criminal.

When you engaged with both?

You didn't engage with both, you were straw-manning, and trying to make out I claimed things I didn't claim 😂

I absolutely did not row back, I never claimed that having a motive or a history of violence and abuse would make it less likely for the person to be insane, just that the jury would struggle to get past it, and legally find them insane which is true.

Legally the right verdict in some of those cases should be NGRI

And then you think you can demand I 'start again' , if you wanted a discussion Danny you'd up your standard of debate instead of acting like a child 😂but you not asking in good faith and instead are just twisting my answers.

Well the prosecution did try to use that as evidence that Lindsay knew it was wrong, but the legal test in Massachusetts is different than Ohio.

In Massachusetts a person can understand that it is wrong but still be found NGRI if their mental illness deprived them of the ability to obey the law.

One of the female jurors actually said that the reason she voted LC not guilty was because she felt LC had killed her children because everything got too much for her and she needed help. So she agrees with the prosecution then! She clearly did not believe that LC was insane. So she should have voted guilty.

Well if she found her NGRI then it sounds like she believes that Lindsays mental illness got so bad that it got to the point where it deprived her of the ability to obey the law, in which case NGRI was the correct verdict for her to go with.

I still find the Massachusetts system utterly bizarre. This is a genuine and serious question: does Massachusetts have a list of approved MH conditions that you can claim made you unable to stop yourself breaking the law, even though you understood what you were about to do was against the law?

If not, then surely someone can claim something like intense anger or sadness or frustration meant they couldn’t stop themselves? They could, if necessary, make that sound better by adding in a MH condition like depression, which caused the anger, sadness, frustration.

No, she just didn’t understand what her job as a juror was.

If I thought someone was insane I would say so - I would not say that everything got too much for them and they snapped - that is different.

What I personally think is that LC is a person with a cluster B presentation. Women with this type of presentation can seem like perfectionists with unreasonably high expectations of themselves and other people. When other people fell short of those things, they must be punished. I think she felt her children were showing her up to be a bad mother so she killed them. Makes no sense to anyone with empathy but to someone with a mask on, when that mask slips you see what they are capable of. For years, people like this can seem like a wonderful parent and they play the role of engaged and dedicated. But it is just an act.

She had neurotic personality traits when she was at university and these got worse with every child she birthed, she became less able to cope because of (in my opinion) her underlying personality disorder. She saw the children as her possessions and she didn’t want anyone else to look after them.

If you are a reasonable person and you know that having 3 children put a strain on your mental health, you don’t then start planning to have a fourth.

From the evidence in the trial, this is more likely than her being genuinely insane. And women don’t usually get PPP when their child is 8 months old. It’s usually very soon after birth. She would probably much prefer to spend her time in a psychiatric facility than jail.

The law said the defence can be raised when there is 'any evidence, which if believed, might create a reasonable doubt'.

Expert testimony isn't required, the evidence can even come from the circumstances of the crime, the defendants behaviour, the defendants own statements etc.

If the judge believes that there is literally no evidence at all that could create reasonable doubt then he won't give the instruction on criminal responsibility, so the jury will instead be told the defendant pleaded not guilty.

And then also the law states that the definition of a "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

which would essentially rule out say a serial killer with a personality disorder, unless he had some other kind of mental disease or defect along with the personality disorder. He could still try the NGRI defence though but the prosecution will obviously keep emphasising how anti-social personality disorder does not satisfy the legal requirement according to the law and the judge will also be emphasizing the same in the jury instructions.

If not, then surely someone can claim something like intense anger or sadness or frustration meant they couldn’t stop themselves?

There's a provocation/heat of passion doctrine which is a mitigating circumstance that can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter....but it must be the sort of thing that would cause a reasonable person to lose control, I would say the person may well have been temporarily insane at the time if something like that happens, but something like that doesn't count, it has to be the mental illness that caused the loss of control, not a circumstance.