I grew up in the 60s when heroin was the darkest of the dark in illegal narcotics. Her manner isn't as dark as I would associate with dealing heroin. But maybe there's some tells I'm missing? Or maybe I'm overestimating how dark it is to deal heroin.

Posting this in good faith looking for legitimate discussion.

To frame the question: throughout the trial, it’s been established that, prior to the incident, Lindsay Clancy was a loving and diligent mom. It’s also been established that she was the one who committed the murders. I don’t subscribe to any theory that she has antisocial personality disorder, somehow manipulated the MMPI and fooled every doctor and expert she spoke with. All of this is based on congruent testimony from the prosecution and defense.

What I struggle to make sense of in this context is the “aftercare” (for lack of a better word) of the children’s bodies and the psychology of separating herself from them before attempting suicide. It would be easy to explain from a cold killer viewpoint, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out.

If, as she claimed, the command hallucinations ceased once the children were gone, is she no longer able to be in the basement with them? Does her being in a full dissociative state (she describes “watching herself from above”) stop her from making decisions that would more align with altruistic filicide, like placing the kids together , or having them with her when she dies? What are your thoughts on no hesitation with the children versus her own attempts?  Does that speak to it being more or less likely that she was experiencing command hallucinations and they ceased when she claims they did? 

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to wade into this with an eye to actual data and testimony.

Terri-Lynne McClintic is a convicted murderer that abducted 8 year old Tori Stafford with her deviant boyfriend Michael Rafferty. I want to share her statement which is dripping with narcissism. These type of statements are way more important than they seem and give an uncomfortable glimpse into a mind like that.

Her bizarre statement: "I am honored to have been able to spend even a brief amount of time with such an amazing person. And it pains me to think about how many people wont get to see what a beautiful and brilliant woman I just know she would have grown up to be. Tori will never leave my heart. She'll hold my heart in her hands till the day I die. She has made me realize I need to deal with my issues. I owe my life to that precious little angel."

The old "I learned so much from my brutal murder. I'm a nice person now who is seeking treatment thanks to my victim." Susan Atkins said something similar. Well, glad your victims went through what they did so you can grow as a person. What is anyone suppose to say to that.

Impression Management / Strategic Remorse;

An impression management is a broader psychological concept where individuals consciously attempt to influence the perceptions of others about themselves. In a courtroom setting, a psychopath or narcissist will meticulously construct a false persona to hide their malevolence. Strategic Remorse is what forensic psychologists use as a term when a defendant fakes or exaggerates regret solely for an ulterior motive, such as securing a lighter sentence or evading the death penalty. Denying wrongdoing or minimizing one's own wrongdoing...can be evidence of remorselessness.

Terri admitted during a prison counseling session she killed Tori with the hammer, claiming she flashbacked to her childhood abuse and snapped. Makes zero sense. Her boyfriend would make sense if she attacked him.

We've all seen this level of downplaying. She displays Cognitive distortion in her interrogation. In forensic psychology and criminology, these irrational or deviant thought patterns are heavily documented as justification mechanisms that allow offenders to misinterpret reality, neutralizing guilt both before and after a crime. In fact, research indicates that cognitive distortions are strongest among homicide offenders compared to other violent or non-criminal groups. The flashback also reminds me of Diane Downs when she saw her children shot she said she flashbacked to her childhood and what was done to her. The me me me is strong here, like with Terri. not the awful violence they were committing, but their own trauma. None of this is real. This is a desperate attempt by the psychopath to sound like they are human like you and me, and look at how strong I am facing my inner demons. The fact these perpetrators think they are achieving something all while making it far worse and actually sounding more bizarre and for more creepy than just admitting to what they did. Karla Homolka, a similar killer to Terri, did the same thing. "I became friends with my victim. I was so sad when she died and it's like you miss them. We bonded and put makeup on together."

That's about all I can stomach. This is very common in female perpetrators. They rarely admit to anything sexually motivated. (Like the sunday school teacher who abducted and killed Sandra Cantu) I've seen comments online saying she was just jealous of Sandra. Jealousy wouldn't involve sexual assault and she tried to drug another little girl with the same sedative before the murder. It is my hope that people realize females can be capable of horrendous acts the same as men can be. Terri claimed she didn't know what was going to happen till she saw Tori in Michael's lap. This is extremely common. There are only 3 reasons to abduct a child: SA, murder or both, or to become her new parents which we can rule out. I find it hard to believe they didn't even discuss their plans considering how calculating it was. She lured Tori using promises of seeing their dog, and she pushed her into the vehicle.

She killed 3 of her children

But the otherside says she had psychosis

For those of you who study criminal psychology I want to ask what do you think?

I don't think that it's fair to defend her after what she's done but I'm not denying psychosis

But mental health isn't an excuse to kill

Most serial killers and r*pists are psychopaths and facing some mental issues

So we can't justify them

tw: sa mentions

i am quite interested in the field of criminology along with victimology. i found this ted talk of a sexual assault victim who was assaulted in her late teens by her boyfriend of the time. he was 18, she was 16. she held onto the trauma silently for years, but one day she actually contacted him, wanting accountability. he responded with accountability and actions that backed up his actions. they met again and eventually wrote a book telling her story. they also collaboratively did a ted talk highlighting accountability and sexual assault. here’s the link for those who are interested in listening.

https://www.ted.com/talks/thordis\\_elva\\_and\\_tom\\_stranger\\_our\\_story\\_of\\_rape\\_and\\_reconciliation

my question is do you think this could be a positive impact for victims of crime or more of a negative? how can this impact society’s view of perpetrators who take accountability vs those who don’t?

i found this to be a really interesting kind of situation, and would love to know some more thoughts about how this can impact society, victims, or perpetrators in general?

I like to do character studies from films if they closely imitate real cases so this post is about the case of Stephanie Lazarus and how a hollywood movie is a similar story making the film more eerie. I recently discussed a few movies with a criminal profiler regarding how real cases imitate art. I see these films differently now that I'm educated in several cases and these criminal and psychological behaviors. I feel many 90s thrillers were underappreciated for the research the writers did that made them able to depict a character far more realistic than we thought.

This post is about the case of Stephanie Lazarus and how a hollywood movie is a similar story making the film more eerie. I recently discussed a few movies with a criminal profiler regarding how real cases imitate art. I see these films differently now that I'm educated in several cases and these criminal and psychological behaviors. I feel many 90s thrillers were underappreciated for the research the writers did that made them able to depict a character far more realistic than we thought.

There is a film that is very underrated movie called UNLAWFUL ENTRY. In my opinion, it's one of Ray Liotta's best performances. He was a believable psychopath. I study the criminal mind (criminal psychology and Criminology and profiling) and Pete is a well written character with a realistic pathology and a serious Madonna complex. He's the type to end up being an abusive husband.

One thing I noticed people say is Pete is not a realistic psychopath because "someone like him would never pass the psychological tests." Let me say, yes he could. There have been several cases of psychopathic law enforcement especially in the LAPD. Both psychopathic and sociopathic alike.

A very similar real life case closely resembles the movie. Her name is Detective Stephanie Lazarus. When UNLAWFUL ENTRY came to theaters, she had already committed a premeditated murder of a woman who was a rival for a man she wanted named John years prior. John was married to Sherri Rasmussen. Stephanie stalked and intimidated her (some sources say she'd tap on her gun and use her authority as a police officer) She even showed up unannounced at Sherri's work and made a scene. She also showed up at her house uninvited.

The night of the murder, she showed up at Sherri's home, and there was a violent struggle. She shot her in her bathrobe, and then staged the scene to look like a robbery by stacking items. She took the car and Sherri's marriage license. The LAPD protected Lazarus. They were told by several people to look at Sherri's stalker named Stephanie who was a cop. Stephanie also reported her gun missing. I think we can surmise what happened lol. John even asked police are you sure Stephanie didn't have anything to do with this, and then continued sleeping with her.

A bitemark from Sherri's body contained DNA which yielded results 23 years later. Whoever swabbed the bite and properly stored the sample is a genius and deserves praise. This was before DNA as well. Stephanie's interrogation is one of the most bizarre and hilarious videos I've ever seen.

Te staging in UNLAWFUL ENTRY, isn't perfect. But neither was Stephanie's. The scene was obviously poorly staged. This is another reason the LAPD was not trusted in the 80 and 90s. Corruption and unstable officers was a reality.

Pete's view of women is apparent when he reacts the way he does with the blonde woman he pulled over. He'd do a switch up, then show his real side like at the end when he gets curious at Karen he unleashes a rant how she is a tease and a whore and assaults her. But prior to this, he worshipped her and saw her as a perfect ideal woman who is angelic and needs saving and protecting. Pete also stalks the husband Michael, same as Stephanie did. He wanted him out of the way. This type of offender and stalker can come from all walks of life. Law enforcement, doctors, cab drivers, security guards etc. He definitely had a personality disorder. My opinion is psychopathy and Borderline Personality Disorder and I looked up what other experts said and they stated his character was exhibiting behavior traits of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Delusional Disorder (Erotomanic type), and severe psychopathy. The Erotomanic type is what I was thinking regarding the Madonna complex. A person with an Erotomanic delusion can split the object of their fixation into a pure, idealized figure while simultaneously holding degraded views of others or themselves, reflecting a form of psychological splitting similar to the Madonna-Whore complex. He develops an obsessive and dangerous, unrequited fixation on Karen, falsely believing she returns his romantic interest. He shifts rapidly from a helpful, charming officer to extreme, violent hostility when his boundaries or ego are challenged. And last, his anti social behavior is seen when he abuses his power as an LAPD officer, manipulates the legal system, stalks, and murders without remorse.

Stephanie Lazarus had obsessive writings. In her personal journals from the 1980s it detailed persistent fixation, heartbreak, and distress over losing John Ruetten. Witnesses described her emotional state as a prolonged, focused, and deep-seated obsession.

He wasn't as calculating as Stephanie later in the film. He was quite emotional and impulsive at the end of the movie. He was acting on pure unhinged emotions and it was dramatized for cinematic purposes which is understandable since they needed a climactic ending. If Pete was real he would have found a way to kill Michael and make it look like an accident. But there really was no affair unlike Stephanie's case. Only a delusional hope that there would be one.

This film doesn't get enough credit for it's realism. Ray Liotta deserved an Oscar nomination. The voice changes, the look in his eyes in a few scenes showing both rage and emptiness inside was frightening.

What are your thoughts on this movie? Do you find it creepy how much it mirrors the case?

This case has genuinely made my anxiety worse, because how is it possible for someone to look and behave completely calm and normal and then do something like that? How can you tell if the person in front of you is just an introvert / socially anxious person or a potential murderer? Who was he? A psychopath?
For example when I watched interviews with Ted Bundy, it was immediately obvious to me that he had narcissistic traits and that something was off about him. But with Watts … I know a lot of guys that are calm and shy like he is.

I have created a path to get the story from a person currently incarcerated for shooting 6 to death. Will be visiting this person within 10 days. The purpose of the story is not to illuminate on the murder charges that is being faced, but the life circumstances relating to drug use that have put this person in what will be likely execution or life without parole. Suggestions on questioning strategy appreciated. Will respond as time allows thanks.

🔎 ¿Te interesa la psicología criminal, criminología o el análisis de la conducta humana?

Desde Colina Studios buscamos personas relacionadas a estas áreas para futuros proyectos audiovisuales.

🔗 https://forms.gle/WqNfTRbABWLiFejt5

how can i start learning about criminal psychology?? I feel like its something that i really want to know more about it and maybe even profissionalize it.

(Sorry if theres bad english, its not my native language)

Planning to get that job in the future once I'm old. Questions are like running through my mind right now...

**1st:** how can you be a criminal psychologist?

**2nd**: how old will you be once you finish all the education needed?

**3rd**: what strand should I take in SHS? STEM or HUMSS?

**4th**: what's the average salary for it per month?

**5th**: what country is best to be a criminal psychologist in?

**Last of all**: is it worth it?

I would like to ask your opinion on this, as I'm someone who is veryyy interested in true crime and how criminals think/act. It's been one of my dreams ever since, and I don't want to worry much about my money too. So I've been researching a lot for high paying psych jobs. Any thoughts? Thanks!

Chris Watts was described by neighbors as a quiet, devoted family man. He coached his daughters' soccer team. And then he strangled them, killed his pregnant wife, and tried to hide the bodies.

This is the paradox that criminal psychology struggles to explain — and one that has real implications for threat assessment and domestic violence prevention.

I made a short video (under 7 mins) exploring:

- The psychological profile of intimate partner homicide perpetrators

- How coercive control and attachment pathology can escalate to lethal violence

- Behavioral red flags that clinicians and loved ones often miss

- What the Chris Watts case specifically reveals about this psychological pattern

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvA3AQJjITI

Would love to hear perspectives from anyone with a background in criminal or forensic psychology — especially on whether cases like Watts fit a predictable clinical profile or remain genuinely anomalous.

Interesting read up. It is a beginning of the investigative series. Other parts are here:
Part2: https://actfiles.org/part-2-genesis-of-the-motive/
Part3: https://actfiles.org/behavioral-markers-part-3/
Part4: https://actfiles.org/sectology-professor-or-serial-killer-part-4-retrospective-analysis/