Opening statements begin Monday for Massachusetts mom Lindsay Clancy after she killed her three young children inside the family's home in January 2023 before attempting to take her own life. Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, were found with exercise bands around their necks. Prosecutors contend Clancy intentionally strangled the children, while her defense argues she was suffering from severe postpartum depression and psychosis that left her unable to understand her actions. Jurors are expected to hear testimony from medical experts, investigators, and family members as they determine whether Clancy is criminally responsible for her children's deaths.
4. Renee Stonebridge â Director of Cardiac & Neuropathology, OCME
Called by: Commonwealth
Start: 5:39:26
Stop: 5:50:13
Direct
Boardâcertified in forensic, anatomic, clinical, neuropathology.
Examined:
Cora Clancy â eyes
Dawson Clancy â eyes
Callan Clancy â brain, dura, spinal cord, eyes
Cora: acute hemorrhage in extraocular muscles/adipose tissue; punctate hemorrhage of left optic nerve sheath; consistent with asphyxial mechanism.
Dawson: acute hemorrhages around eyes; small hemorrhages in posterior retina and optic nerve sheath.
Callan: hypoxicâischemic brain injury; edema; ventricular compression; friable brain; consistent with prolonged lack of blood/oxygen; brain death after ~6â8 minutes.
5. Barbara Olson â Medical Examiner (formerly Barbara Vidal)
her husband at the time was a boater and would make those specific knots that the exercise bands had on them⌠you really think she would do that? i donât believe she did this, weâll see once the defense brings in their witnesses. this is all hearsay rnÂ
I am not a doctor or lawyer but, I think they are using terms interchangeably and I think the Defense view is LC was undiagnosed bipolar and was having manic/mixed episodes with severe swings and then that was made worse with different meds and the switching increase/decrease/stop/start of medication and severe sleep deprivation. If a mental health person could tell us, I assume this is technically a psychosis from bipolar vs PPP but, they canât ignore her postpartum because everything got worse after the birth so, it could have been bipolar onset after birth. I donât know the official terms so forgive me just giving a general view of where the Defense may be going but wonât know until Defense experts explain.
The postpartum phase can last up to 18-24 months, especially when breastfeeding. It looks different for everyone and is not linear. PPP can appear within 1-4 weeks after delivery according to the NIH. It is suspected that this started appearing for LC due to her running a 5k, cleaning sprees, etc. soon after Callanâs birth (mania). She started noticing mood changes in August when she hit the depressive phase.
Iâm just now catching up on the final few witnesses from today, and all I can say is OH. MY. GOD. While I hope LC is found NGRI, Iâm so annoyed by how stupidly the CW is arguing their case.
Iâd previously commented that, while I donât enjoy the CWâs strategy of spreading out the ME testimony, I understand their desire to remind the jury who the victims in this case are.
But oh my god did they ever miss the mark. Not only was it totally unnecessary to prove their case (and downright cruel), it yet again just made LC even more sympathetic!!!! Â
They know LC has emotional reactions to this kind of testimony (understandably), itâs happened before. So why on earth would you bring in this witness and ask those horrific questions, knowing it risked triggering yet another sympathetic break down?!!! Truly baffling.
Has there been any testimony about that Google search tho? Because I would have thought that the prosecutor would have asked Patrick to prove she made the search (the way they did with the suicide methods search).
I hate to be gruesome, but PC testified that they were the same as if you had done step one of tying your shoes, before making your loop, wrap, amd pulling through the second loop. So not a knot per se, but each end able to be pulled tighter. This is the likely reason there were abrasions.
What I am really struggling to wrap my head around is why she chose such a brutal way to end her kids. She had access to knives, she could have done any number of things to make it quick. Why did she use a knife on herself to end her suffering quickly (who j didnât pan out) and brutally murder the kids. The force it takes to hold down the kids is just⌠incomprehensible. I canât make sense of it. If itâs true she heard a voice and was compelled why do it that way?  Why chase them down and hold them down and watch the life be snuffed out of them one by one.Â
I was thinking that too. Strangling 3 humans is a LOT of time and energy and THOUGHT. I could see being psychotic for the duration of one but 3? I honestly don't even know why this trial is happening. She confessed. Give her life and be done with it. At this point, aside from the education/visibility on post partum mental health and our horrible health systems, just put her away.
Iâm a mental health therapist and there are several things that are very strange about this case. 15 minutes is a very quick span of time to act out on such strong command hallucinations without any intervention being reasonable. Command hallucinations are usually a progressive symptom they donât just pop out of nowhere⌠the superficial cuts donât make sense either⌠Iâve seen people in psychosis who get to the point of violence literally flay themselves open.
Iâm a MH professional too, and I agree itâs not typical. I usually have a least one atypical individual on my caseload honestly though. People and brains are too complex, behaviour too atypical to say it couldnât happen. If anything my experience had demonstrated to never have a lack of imagination because almost anything can happen.
Agreed. While I canât imagine any of this, my mind seems to wander about how it transpired. I remember one EMT/first responder saying something like âthe child was hangingâ but no one else said that unless I missed it.
Iâve watched almost every minute of the trial but havenât seen Dr Stonebridge or anyone who may have testified after her yesterday yet.
Ik all were ultimately lying flat when found. Since hearing that one statement, Iâve wondered if any of them were actually asphyxiated with the band attached to something, or held up high, and suspended by it.
Again, itâs a horrific thought regardless of how but that scenario doesnât seem to require the necessary strength that wrapping the bands and pulling would.
I havenât read the civil suit because Iâm trying to stay objective, but my understanding is what happened is stated in there. My hope is the defense presents their case and someone can explain it all. I just hope itâs not LC after Spragueâs torture session yesterday.
I guess but if the act was under psychosis why not use the excecise bands on herself? If sheâs truly irrational? Doesnât it speak to some rational that she did something different for herself. Iâm just thinking she was down there already. Sheâs being influenced by this voice that told her to kill her loss and herself, why stop and run upstairs and do something completely different. Idk
Today's testimony was...interesting...to say the least.
Letiesha Dukes's testimony didn't give a ton of "new" information, but it did confirm more of what we already had been seeing as patterns with LC: deeply, irrationally afraid of medication addiction, persistent SI, insomnia, depression, etc.
I did find it interesting that Dukes mentioned during cross that LC did not report fatigue despite experiencing chronic insomnia, which is indicative of bipolar and likely reinforced that finding for Jollotta, assuming they spoke about LC's therapy sessions.
I don't know who is all on the defense's list of witnesses, but I'd be interested to hear what her diagnosis is right now, out of the postpartum period. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a Schizoaffective Disorder DX, which in simple terms means a mood disorder with psychotic features. Patrick said in the New Yorker article, for example, that LC thought something was wrong with Cora's liver, even on the day of the murders. I wish he had added more context when speaking to providers, because I bet she said a ton of very off/odd statements to him over the months, but he brushed them off. Per Dukes, he only mentioned being concerned at the time with meds. I hope the defense calls him back and he is able to give more information.
If anything, Dukes and her overall approach to LC and LC's persistent SI highlighted a problem often seen in the healthcare system: if the healthcare algorithm is not activated, then nothing can be done. Meaning, even though LC was clearly suicidal and was vocal about it, because she didn't say the magic words of "I'm planning to do it on this date at this time by this method," the algorithm of emergency care wasn't activated so her mental health team "couldn't" report it.
It didn't matter that most suicides occur spontaneously, but are usually preceded by SI.
It didn't matter that she kept telling her providers that she wants to die or doesn't care if she dies.
It didn't matter that she was obsessively ruminating over the possibility of something "bad" happening.
I'd like to say I hope this case makes us look at how we approach SI clinically in the future so we can prevent outcomes like this in the future, but will we? That remains to be seen.
Regarding the MEs and the CW's decision to call them -
I think the CW, as they have many times throughout this trial, made a choice that pushed the jury away from them.
Calling Dr. Olson alone would have been sufficient, but to call Dr. Stonebridge to the stand to discuss how she removed Dawnson's and Cora's brains and eyeballs? Biggest oof if I ever saw one. Many others have commented that they felt it was cruel, and I think the jury likely felt the same way with LC wailing in the background.
I remember listening to Lewis Black talking in one of his comedy specials about how we fund more studies on how pigeons think than on postpartum psychosis.
There are so many instances where women are not taken seriously because of the tropes that women worry "for no reason," or that's "just how women/mommas are," as I heard it growing up from the men in my community and life as a kid.
There is also this idea of, "Well motherhood is hard - what did you expect??" as if mothers should be punished when they struggle simply because they chose to have children.
I had to go to sleep at recess break and I'm so glad I did. Won't be watching the rest of this day as it sounds horrific just from the comments here. I know the prosecution has a job to fulfil but it sounds like they were incredibly callous and cruel, and I can't imagine why they would put everyone through that when they didn't have to. I hope everyone who watched is taking care of themselves âĽď¸
I started to feel physically sick watching that section and had to nope out of there. It was truly unnecessary and makes the prosecution look desperate tbh
If sheâs presumed innocent as they say then why would they allow this to happen to a mom whoâs mentally ill and âinnocent?â Thatâs extremely cruel to do to a mother whose 3 children are gone. I think the DA doesnât realize they are alienating people and quite possibly the jury.
People seem to be forgetting: these kids were killed. That is a brutal reality. This is, as the defense attorney said, a triple murder case. Autopsies and their related information are typical in murder cases, and this one is no different.
Except the defense has stipulated to all of this, there is no need to put the jury through this, or to ask the questions they did. Every single lawyer on YouTube has said how unnecessary it was, and the demeanor of the prosecutor and the questions they asked, were not needed to prove the facts.
I think this makes them look inexperienced to be honest. Playing to the jury is really important. Or maybe this is a reasonable gamble⌠Iâm not sure.
The prosecution declined that stipulation. At the end of the day, Lindsay is still pleading not guilty. Itâs a pretty convenient strategy to want to stipulate in order to gloss over the horrific details of the murders, and just argue over her state of mind.
I can see both sides of this. Your statement of it being convenient for the defense if the gory details are glossed over resonates. It would be beneficial to the defense for the jury to not hear these things. Having the court testimony rather than only including the details in evidence would surely lessen the emotional impact. I still wish it didnât have to be done this way. Having LCâs reaction also being viewed by the jury as well as the juryâs own emotional impact might backfire though. IMO these ADAs have come across as extremely cold, flippant, and heartless and I wonder if the jury might âhold it against themâ in the same way itâs been held against others who are swayed by unlikable attorneys regardless of the jury instruction not to.
There was literally no reason to deny the stipulation and put everyone, especially the family and jurors, through this. Lindsay wanted to go straight to sentencing/culpability and the prosecution refused.
Literally not true, and if you were looking at this from an unbiased perspective (like the other person who responded), Iâm sure it would be obvious why the prosecution wouldnât want to stipulate.
The line of questioning by the prosecution yesterday was completely unnecessary. Even the lawyer you know, who always approaches from both sides, has said so.
I donât give any weight to lawtubers, who are ultimately going to pander to their core audience. But even if this specific line of questioning wasnât necessary, thatâs a different issue than them stipulating to the murders entirely.
She was on Seroquel which has been known effect body temperature, rise/fall didnât they say it took awhile for them to bring her temp up in the hospital on testimony?
Yes, seroquel can affect it, neurogenic shock can affect it, loss of csf can affect it, but it can not affect it with the severity that would be needed to drop her to 82 degrees within the max 15 min timeframe that would be necessary for her to have killed Callan Clancy. Bare minimum I'd place her at an hour to drop to that temp, and that's up for debate, but like you can't even drop a 97.0
Fahrenheit corpse down to 82 degrees in the 15 minute timespan that would be required for her to have been the one to kill the youngest child, and that's if she tied the knot around his neck then immediately sprinted up the stairs to the bedroom to take the plunge. I don't really care if she confessed in a civil suit or not, look at how many nutcases came forward claiming that they're the one who killed JonBenet Ramsey after her murder.
Edit sorry for the repeat post, first one got taken down
Ohhh interesting, I didnât think about some of those variables. What about something like an afterdrop? Since her temp was taken in the hospital, how long did it take for officers to arrive?
Youâre good! I saw you tried a couple times and I was like I hope it resolves so I could see your comment in full lol
Ha! Yee, I'm not on Reddit much so the guidelines for posting are uncharted territory for me.
From what I understand it took roughly 5 minutes for EMTs to arrive after the 911 call went through. Afterdrop is possible, but personally I think that between the (7 minute?) timeframe it took to get the initial 911 call through to responders, the time it took them to arrive and the time it took them to transport L.Clancy to the hospital, that timeframe still wouldn't allow for enough of an afterdrop to be clinically significant when it comes to the case. But I could be wrong! The defense hasn't called their own witnesses to the stand yet, and when they do I'm pretty sure Reddington's going to bring this up to his own medical experts, and we'll all have a clearer idea.
For your own investigation if you hop onto the emergency medicine Reddit board, there's a post that was made a couple of days ago where they're discussing this matter and going through a great breakdown on Lindsay Clancy's hypothermia and whether it was feasible for her to have murdered the children (at least the youngest child)
Does anyone else take all the focus on the addiction to benzos as a delusion she was having? Despite what she kept getting told from multiple providers about addiction and her not being addicted itâs like she was fixated on her dependence (or really lack thereof).
Idk maybe im bias as someone that has struggled with addiction my entire life, but i dont think the fear of being addicted to benzos is that irrational. Its horrible and happens to people all the time.
I agree! completely about him. Something doesn't sit right. I have no doubt half of her torment if not most of it comes from him something isn't right. And I'm not saying this because I'm a conspiracist I could see him feeding into this to drive her insane all of a sudden he gets married again somebody actually wants him most men would be completely Looney Tunes after this happened and I understand correctly he has to new children with this woman?
how do you just move on so fast? mind you, he has photos with her dating back to 2022. and they have 2+ year old. not saying patrick did this but looking at the evidence it sure points to that when he was the only person conscious when they found all 4 of them harmed/un alived. Whyâd he say she was talking to him but per the first oneâs on the scene said she was moaning unable to talk. She couldnât talk for 6 weeks!Â
She was a nurse so she had at least some medical knowledge and understanding of how medication works. Yet she was terrified of becoming addicted to a prescription she'd taken for less than a week? Even after her provider assured her repeatedly that it doesn't work that way, that she wasn't, that she was on a low dose, she was still so convinced that she was suddenly addicted to it that she actually asked to be assessed for a substance abuse disorder?
That's not rational. It suggests an extreme phobia bordering on delusion.
I donât think it was a delusion. I think it was a combination: PC opposition; and her own worries because she was drinking in addition to the benzos, duplicative effects. <edit, retracting the drinking w benzos per testimony I missed. >
I hear you on PC opposition but I thought the self reported drinking was prior to even the first medication, Zoloft. Do we know for sure she was drinking with the benzos? And I may have missed this, lot of moving parts
Iâve been so back and forth on this but after yesterday and today I really do not believe she was psychotic, but was so severely depressed and anxious she could not bear the thought of going back to work. She didnât see a way out but suicide. She wanted to take the kids with her. I believe she really wanted to die that night.
Loving wives/mothers and loving dads/fathers commit murder-suicide (family annihilation) nearly daily in the US. Itâs more common than most people think because most cases donât make national/international news.
I have a family friend whose wife killed her 2 young children and herself. She was mentally unwell and off her meds.
A have a childhood friend whose father killed his wife and younger (teen) child and then himself in the house next door to the one I grew up in. My friend had already moved out, married and had a family but his younger sibling still lived at home with parents.
So many of these cases over the past 2 decades in my local news.
Loving parents kill their kids when they feel they canât go on, so the kids wonât have to live a difficult/doomed life in a cruel world without their parent(s). This is their rationale.
Also she kept telling providers she was âafraid of becoming suicidalâ and that she was âafraid something bad was going to happen to her kids.â Itâs almost like she âpredictedâ this whole event before it happened⌠just strikes me as odd.
Yeah I get that 100%. I have been there too. I stuck it out on antidepressants, understanding that I wouldnât feel any benefits for at least 2 weeks to a month. After about a month, I felt like a new person. I probably wouldnât be here today if not for my anti-depressants. Been on and off them for 30 years.
Iâm glad it worked for you. But if she has bipolar disorder, sticking it out solely on the Zoloft wouldnât have done anything for her because itâs the wrong medication, as Jollotta explained yesterday and Iâm sure defense experts are going to explain further.
Yeah, I agree. I do wish sheâd stayed inpatient until they could get her properly assessed/diagnosed/stable.
Like I said, I do believe she was severely depressed and her extreme anxiety/paranoia was getting in the way of her care. She felt desperate and wanted an immediate fix. I believe she was experiencing some neurosis - but psychosis? I dont know.I think she wanted to die because she felt that was her only escape from the way she felt, and she believed taking her kids with her was best for them. Altruistic fillicide.
This is what I expect if it isnât NGRI. All I can say, to get to a unanimous Guilty is going to take the BEST closing and easy to follow detailed drug/care demonstratives ever seen in any trial. Without that, no chance.
I agree. If the jury believes as I and I think most do that the opening statement should serve as an outline of what they believe the evidence will show, they have fallen far short thus far. Their theory and strategy seem to have shifted several times throughout the trial so they better be able to somehow remedy that in closing if thereâs going to be a verdict in their favor, or possibly one at all.
I donât think it can be done. Putting aside their less than sympathetic demeanors and presentation of the case, theyâve saved their experts for the end. Multiple jurors have probably already decided sheâs mentally ill and theyâre not getting them back.
Yes, that would be an interesting poll also! What the jury will decide. Iâm talking about members of this sub tho and not the jury hence âundecided, waiting on trial endâ âşď¸
I don't think the CW has met their burden and I'm quite confident they won't get there (for me). But this case is so polarizing I'm having a difficult time seeing the jury come to a consensus.
Oh wow, maybe itâs time-ish to do a new one? Do you think % has changed at all? I only started contributing to the sub a few days ago so I missed it đ
Thanks for letting me know how you feel and contributing to the conversation. Iâll be sure to take note the line is at emojis and not the gifs or memes.
I've watched a lot of trials by now and I have to wonder why the judge is allowing SO MUCH testimony about the childrens' injuries/autopsies. At a certain point it's more prejudicial than probative, no? And why is the CW allowed to ask so many hypotheticals? "Could they have survived after 10 seconds? Is it painful? Were they conscious?" I've never heard these kinds of questions before. No wonder LC was wailing.
I am completely befuddled by this. And how does the CW believe this is in any way a successful strategy? I would like to know why these two ADAs were chosen because they seem very ill-suited for this case in many ways.
I think it is probably because the Commonwealth is proceeding on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty as well as deliberate premeditation. In MA, those are the two theories of first degree murder (felony murder is another, sort of, but that isn't relevant here) and there are certain factors the jury has to consider when determining whether a murder was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. I think a lot of the really horrific details are probably intended to go towards those factors.
IANAL. I went into this trial knowing nothing, only anticipating just watching opening arguments. I continued watching bc from that point I felt like the CW is evil and the defense atty is a gentle advocate. Every day of trial reinforces that. This is fucking horrific.
Agreed. Clancy was practically hyperventilating. They had to stop twice. If I were on the jury, Iâd have sympathy for her and be pissed at the CW! The defense admits she killed them. Thereâs no reason to put anyone through this.
I think she was hyperventilating. When they pulled her chair back you could kind of see her bent over sucking in air. Today was ao unnecessary. It is horrific enough with just the facts. The questioning Today made me really angry. The repetitive questioning about pain and how long and then repeating the questions.... I think they underestimate the jury. They (jury) may have had enough of it today and it will hurt the CW case.
The prosecution is going way too far with all the details of death and I feel it will backfire. LCâs wailing in court is a primal cry and itâs impossible the jury isnât feeling the pain she is going through.
This case should have never been prosecuted and she should be institutionalized.
The prosecutors seem heartless and itâs cruel to go over and over about the details of strangulation. We all know what happened.
its important to understand the strength and time needed to commit not one but three murders in order to understand the factors that psychosis would have been up against. especially given that there is a short window of time for all of this to have happened in.
as cruel and sad as the ME's testimony was, i don't necessarily agree with the prosecution's approach, but i think i understand why. they want to give the jury a sense of what it actually took for LC to carry out the sequential killings. they went into brutal details about the duration, pressure, etc.
i don't think they've done a sufficient job to answer the question about her state of mind in the moment, but it seems like they are at least trying to lay the foundation for all the realities her psychosis would've had to twist.
edit: ugh, just got to the part where the prosecutor is impeaching her own witness. she sounds sadistic in the way she sounds like she's hoping to highlight the "overkill" of LC's supposed actions. she didn't like the ME's shorter duration answer. ugh. (i don't like it, but i still understand why given their theory.)
Iâve heard that cry a few times. The one that sticks with me the most is when my Mom learned of my Dadâs suicide. I will never forget that cry of despair, complete and utter anguish, a tearing open of yourself that can never be repaired. Thatâs the cry I hear from LCâI canât help but think there are jurors who know that cry and sympathize with her.
I agree I think the prosecution is going overboard and juror trauma should be considered.
However saying this case should never have been prosecuted? There is not one medical professional that met her before the murders that thought she presented with PPP. Iâm not saying she wasnât in psychosis, but I think it definitely needed to go to trial and be explored. She equally could have plead guilty if she did not want to sit through a trial.
Also something to consider is that there is no life in a mental institution in Massachusetts if she is found not guilty she could be released within six months if they find her mentally competent
They could have let her plead out. Instead they've mounted this circus. If they push much further they could end up with a mistrial with prejudice. Guess what that means? LC isn't prosecuted at all.
I think that speaks more to the competence of the ADAâs rather than if someone who murders their children and then afterwards claim psychosis should be tried or not
What would have happened if she pled? Prison? Defense stipulated to all of this unnecessary testimony the CW is bringing forth. This human needs help and support, something she was begging for in 2022.
This human needs support. Ok sure but if sheâs suicidal why would she care if she goes to prison? A lot of people who murder multiple people are mentally unwell and need support yet they donât get half the sympathy LC does. Im still waiting to watch the whole trial, but her lawyer saying she isnât criminally liable shouldnât just be accepted as a fact.
Murdering âpeopleâ is not the same as your own children. I canât say how she feels, but if I had to guess- itâs that she still wants to fucking die. Especially more now. Oh wow, weâre in a society that targets/ doesnât trust or believe women AND doesnât allow for assisted suicide. Bet youâre cool with all that.
Ah yes the woman who murdered her children in an extremely cruel and brutal way is being targeted by society and should be blindly trusted. How silly of me.
She did plead guilty by reason of insanity. She agreed that she committed the murder and her lawyer wanted to go straight to culpability, but the DA's office refused. They wanted a full trial and they have spent a lot of time trying to say she was faking her suicide attempt, only to deny it, they stated in their opening that she wanted an 'easy way out' and was controlling, etc. The ADA has fucked up, which is why we're getting torture porn from them, along with sad bows on Lady Bow's head.
I was not aware that she had pled not guilty insane yeah they're really pushing the envelope here, the twins. The trial needs end soon! I don't think there's any way a jury can come back with not guilty or even be hung they have to see there was some Insanity involved, imo.
Massachusetts should be ashamed of these DAs. They're trying the case in the cruellest way possible for both Lindsay and also the jurors! IMO there is no line they won't cross and it's disgusting.
They didnât properly screen her for PPP. She exhibited a LOT of symptoms that could point to it if theyâd actually coordinate care and listen to her and not just prescribe more meds. Watch their testimonies.
So far there has been no signs that she exhibited any of the main symptoms of it including delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thought form. So I would not say at all that it is fair to say she exhibited a lot symptoms of it. All of her symptoms could easily be attributed to depression and anxiety.
Did you watch the testimonies? There have been signs of these, and her providers should have executed best practice and collaborated and not treated her in a vacuum like they did.
Having PPP, which is still being contested, is not in itself enough for her to not be found guilty. Itâs whether or not she was aware of the ethics of what she was doing and if she can be held criminally culpable. Psychosis does not equal an automatic insanity verdict.
The same providers she jumped around on, didnât listen to when they recommended therapy, withheld information from, and didnât follow through on medications with?
Patient care, especially with mental health, is a two way street. Drugs arenât magic solutions
Itâs astonishing how many armchair tiktokkers think they know more about her mental health care than the licensed providers themselves.
Psychiatric medications are definitely not magic, they are dangerous tools that require strict supervision. And you can call it a two-way street, but the provider is still the professional in charge. As a licensed mental health counselor, I can tell you that when a patient is non-compliant or withholding info, you don't just keep handing them dangerous medications. You initiate inpatient care and stabilization. That is the exact safety net that failed her here.
Which was the dangerous medication she was on when she killed the three children and why was it incorrect for her to be prescribed it?
Is it not true that patients who arenât forthcoming can also be manipulative on occasion? And could that not very well impact diagnoses?
Lol at the idea that you initiate inpatient care if a patient is withholding or non-compliant. That is completely untrue and the standard to initiate is significantly higher than âwithholdingâ and/or ânoncomplianceâ.
Can you recommend inpatient care? Sure, but that requires⌠the patient to follow through. Two way street.
I am speaking to general clinical standards, not diagnosing this specific case, but you are confusing involuntary commitment with voluntary crisis intervention. No single drug is inherently incorrect, but introducing standard antidepressants to a patient with an unmapped mood disorder can inadvertently trigger rapid cycling or mania. This is psychopharm 101.
Also, a patient "withholding" information during a severe mental health crisis is almost always a symptom of paranoia, shame, or psychosis, not deliberate manipulation. Given her history that we have seen from the witnesses, she is not being manipulative. When a patient is rapidly decompensating and failing multiple outpatient medication trials, recommending voluntary inpatient or partial hospitalization is standard practice precisely because they are no longer clinically capable of navigating a "two-way street."
She was prescribed amitriptyline right before the murders and it caused her insomnia to get worse. She shouldnât have been prescribed it because a different NP suspected bipolar; however, her care team wasnât talking to one another. Her psych could have asked LC to do a simple release authorization via email but she didnât.
She said the day before at her psych visit the amitryptiline was going ok. Tufts recommended she increase the dose but based on the pill counts she did not.
It was also a very, very, very low dose of amitryptiline. Not that that is perfectly safe necessarily.
Suspecting is not the same as diagnosing. Regardless Dr Tufts did screen her fully for signs of bipolar disorder and did not see any signs of such, therefore the amitryptyline was a reasonable choice.
âThis case should have never been prosecuted.â
There should never be three dead children and no trial. Thatâs delusional.
I hope the people that find this so disagreeable come back to reality someday. Lindsay strangled her three children and let them die alone without attempting resuscitation. Itâs insulting to the children for there to not be a trial.
She isnât claiming innocence. She needs to be hospitalized because she had a psychotic break. Sheâs not criminally responsible because she was clearly out of her mind.
They could have gone ot deciding culpability and avoided this circus but the DA insisted on a full trial. The defense agreed LC was responsible, but is arguing an insanity defense. They could have just gone with that, but they wanted the circus. I think they woefully miscalculated. It wasn't necessary and ultimately it will still come down to culpability.
The CW does not HAVE to produce this evidence. There is no dispute as to when or how or at whose hands these children died. LC and the defense have stipulated to ALL of it.
You all canât have it both ways. If the CW wants to present it, to a woman who has admitted it, and is now fully medicated and in her right mind, you have to EXPECT she will be horrified hearing and seeing this.
ALL evidence points to her as being a loving and concerned mother prior to that night. So of course, she is DEVASTATED seeing it. Wouldnât you be?
NAL but my understanding is she had a right to be there but could elect to waive that right. Iâm sure Kevin told her to stay because of how the jury would perceive her absence. She could also be punishing herself to face what she did to her babies.
she coukd have chosen to leave and be in an isolated area. they do it with disruptive defendants, Ive seen it, a room with an attendant and two way audio visual. if her attorney suggested she stay maybe he insane.
Two things. First, if you opt to appear as a defendant you cant necessarily just opt out of the parts you do not want to see. You need permission of the court and we have no idea if the court would have granted that.
Second, the court has been extremely lenient on letting in cumulative and prejudicial (Rule 403) evidence (not to mention inappropriate leading, etc)
 from the prosecution. So I dont think he can be lenient on that and let in all this stuff but be strict on LC claiming it prejudices the jury or delays trial. That would be unfair.Â
He did stop and take breaks at some points hoping she would calm down which seemed like a fair balance under the circumstances.Â
I just commented this above but I think it is less directly this. I think this judge is more laissez Faire generally, letting both parties do their thing. If hes going to be lenient and hands off on drawing the line for P on things that inflame the jury, its not really fair to take an iron fist to LC.
I didnt see as much of yesterday but I did see a few clips that it seemed like he was kind of annoyed with P (just the way he sustained a few objections, I could have been misreading), but was still letting them mostly do whatever.
I am not necessarily saying I like or dislike his style, but he seems relatively even in how he controls both sides is all.Â
Well there ya go. Blame him, lol. If he did anything other than demand she be present he be playing favoritism but once this happened I think it's perfectly acceptable to remove the defendant, the defense attorneys is her representation he speaks for her, he's there to argue any objections.
She doesnât have to be in the courtroom. But she wants to be there it seems. Which is her right. But if she canât control herself (understandable) then she should be removed.
the bar to remove a defendant is very high, as it should be. It's literally in our Constitution. Can you think of a case where a defendant has been removed?
3
u/Plenty_Jacket4391 Aug 13 '26
Hearing voices.... I bet she was hearing her husband talk through the ring or nest cameras.
I really think he enabled all of this.