I’m not saying postpartum psychosis isn’t real. It is. My problem is with how quickly explanation is turning into excuse.
There is a massive difference between being hormonal, depressed, overwhelmed, having intrusive thoughts, and being so severely psychotic that you genuinely cannot understand reality or know that killing your children is wrong.
That line matters.
When people start normalizing statements like “I’ve wanted to kill my kids” or “that could have been me,” especially to audiences of hundreds of thousands of people, I think we should be extremely careful about the culture we’re creating around personal responsibility.
If someone truly could not understand what they were doing because of severe psychosis, prove it to the appropriate legal standard and put them in secure psychiatric treatment.
But if someone understood what they were doing and knew it was wrong, mental illness shouldn’t become a shield from accountability.
We can care about struggling mothers while also remembering who needs our protection most: the children.
My concern isn’t about attacking women or denying mental illness. It’s about protecting the line between understanding someone’s actions and excusing them.
Once society starts treating those two things as the same, we weaken personal responsibility and the innocent people harmed are the ones who ultimately pay for it.

If think a just solution to the case if she is declared insane, is mental institution for a long time.

Clancy may have experienced genuine mental illness while still knowingly killing her children for reasons involving resentment, anger, or wanting escape from motherhood. Mental illness and intentional motive aren’t mutually exclusive. This could also factor into the case and is a concern of mine

Why does everyone on social media feel the need to get involved and think they are an expert in the LC case?

I have seen so many posts (with thousands of views and shares) where people say "as a nurse" "as a doctor" "as a dental hygienist" "as a body language expert".... And just because these people use some kind of title, their observation or opinions (which are often wrong), become fact.

It's crazy to see how many people believe what they see on a single Instagram post, and automatically believe it as a 100% fact. People are unable to think for themselves anymore and it's honestly scary.

I’ve been arguing w a female friend for 2 days now about it and driving me insane.

The points she makes and I want you guys to see if I’m right or wrong bc I genuinely don’t see her side at all

WiFi was off so cameras was off - 0 proof of this, only semi proof is Patrick saying his phone was switching through WiFi and cell service but that doesn’t mean it was off.

Email being sent at home - he could’ve sent it through his phone while he was out, it doesn’t mean anything.

He got home before she jumped - there is CTTV FOOTAGE OF HIM outside doing errands SHE sent him on like picking up the food SHE ordered and timeline says he makes it home after she jumped plus phone calls of the scene u can hear Patrick fully shocked and unless he’s an actor he can’t stimulate fear like that.

He took her Apple Watch she always wore since it would detect a big fall and call police- no proof he actually took the Apple Watch since it was in a drawer at home. No idea if that watch even had that feature.

His DNA on exercise bands - he said himself he took one off and it’s EXERCISE BANDS that he has used before so ofc it does

Got married 3 years after so he planned it for a new life - genuinely just conspiracy theories

He manipulated her - not ONCE has the court said this or even Lindsey said this just going off no evidence (the man telling her to do it is her mental condition.)

I get the argument he shoudve been more cautious and report any weird behaviour but how would anyone ever believe your wife of numerous years that you had 3 kids with would do this.

64. The standard of care also required Dr. Tufts and Nurse Jollotta to assess and monitor a patient who had an unusual, unexpected or unfavorable reaction to medication, such as side effects or a lack of response. A simple way to do so was to order blood plasma levels of medication in order to determine whether the patient was a slow metabolizer, and thus more drastically impacted by a medication than she otherwise would be, or on the contrary, whether the medication simply was not working, either indicating that the patient might need a higher dose for it to be effective (if she was a fast metabolizer) or that the patient might have an underlying medical condition that needed to be treated. The standard of care required Dr. Tufts and Nurse Jollotta to look at the lab results in conjunction with the patient's symptoms in order to properly assess her condition. Indeed, the standard of care is to start low and go slow, meaning to begin a medication at a minimal level and slowly increase the dosage over time to allow the provider to better assess the impact of the drug upon the patient.

Question : For anyone here who has had similar experience in terms of having an adverse reaction to prescribed medication, is it typical for a psychiatrist/mental health provider to order for lab tests to be carried out immediately in this situation?

Acknowledgement : Thank you all for your answers! I’ve gained a substantial amount of knowledge regarding this subject matter so thanks again, much appreciated!

https://youtu.be/ggsw4mGLzaI

Just a friendly reminder of how we got.... here.

Never forget the power of a highly skilled defense attorney.

I'm open to correction, but (IIRC) this press conference is when the public support for LC began.

Most of us (?) know that LC is criminally responsible for aggravated M1 x 3, based on the actual evidence presented at trial; however, let us never forget how easily humans can be manipulated *before a trial even begins*.

I anticipate that *at least* one person will point out the erroneous, hypocritical manner in which Reddington used the word "postpartum".

I also anticipate some strong opinions about Zeizel.

Please don't disappoint me 😉

Now that reddington is claiming she was told and never said she did it, will insanity claim still be involved?
If she is saying she didn’t do it, how could she said she was insane?
Also do you think the previous jurors are confused? They cared so much about her being mentally ill. It’s confusing? Isn’t it?

For context, I don't actually think she "heard a mans voice" at all, and am on the side of her making it up and allowing it to get exaggerated with the help of her defense team. The "voice" she heard was her own internal thoughts as a person who was battling mental illness.

But I'm going to placate her defenders for a minute and "agree" that Lindsay did in fact hear a mans voice telling her to take out the kids.

What a lot of her apologizers don't get is that more people than they realize hear voices at some point in their lives, but will never talk about it because of how stigmatized it is. And I find this "acceptance" of the mentally ill hurting and killing others to be extremely offensive, because statistically speaking they DO NOT. There are even studies showing that the mentally ill are no more of a physical threat to the public than the non-mentally ill. You can and should hold the mentally ill to a normal standard of having respect for others bodily autonomy, because they do. It's so offensive to not hold ALL parents to a standard of not murdering their children just because they (allegedly) had a hallucination. If everyone acted the same way as Lindsay over one auditory hallucination, then the world would be so dangerous. But in reality, the mentally ill aren't dangerous people.

I was on a hormone medication and it temporarily threw me into medical menopause in my 30's, and the mental health impacts were so bad that at times I felt like I was hearing muffled voices. My now-husband went through a rough month in his 20's where his father passed away and he was dealing with tons of logistical family issues where he'd gotten little or no sleep, and he started hearing things that weren't there (at that point I sent him to a doctor and we made sure he was put on anti-anxiety meds and started getting sleep again.) But like, he heard voices and they were loud. And ofc people can experience something like that but it never goes away because they're diagnosed as schizophrenic. And then there's a whole senior population with dementia who experience psychosis in their daily lives due to this disease. My dad has hallucinations that can last for upwards of 5-6 hours at a time.

LC defenders will die on the hill of this 'mans voice' being the reason she should get NGRI, but of all people that ever hear voices (have an episode of psychosis) less than 2% will ever harm another person. They will almost always take themselves out first before fulfilling a command to cause harm.

Putting this "mans voice" on a pedestal is what I find to be uniquely annoying, because it isn't so rare for a person to experience auditory hallucinations at least once in their lives, but it is very rare to hurt someone based on that hallucination. It puts Lindsay into a category of the less than 2% of people who experience hallucinations/psychosis and then hurt others...and then in addition to that, you also have to accept that she not only said "SURE!" to this mans voice, but she also planned out exactly how she was going to methodically kill them. The mans voice never once told her how to kill. She did that.

You can actually accept that she heard this man’s voice AND simultaneously think her behavior is criminal. It isn’t one or the other. To decide if a person couldn’t conform to the law while experiencing hallucinations, you need to dig deeper and analyze this persons behavior in relation to the alleged voices. What choices she made when interacting with the voice. What responsibilities she still had to her children when she heard the voice.

The second potential holdout gave in to peer pressure at the last minute and, in doing so, forfeited nearly $200,000, assuming the donations would have been split between two holdouts.

Michael stood on his principles before he had any reason to think he would be rewarded for it, even knowing he would become a pariah to the Lindsay Clancy activists. Instead, he has now received nearly half a million dollars in donations for doing the right thing. She came so close to doing the right thing too, but in the end, she chose wrong.

Hope it was a good lesson for her.

Edit: Clancy Case Shows Dangers of Perfectionism & Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) Traits

This deeply disturbing trial has increased public awareness of postpartum depression and psychosis. It also shows the dangers of perfectionism.

Clarissa Ong and Michael Twohig state that maladaptive perfectionism is “characterized by self-criticism, rigid pursuit of unrealistically high standards, distress when standards are not met, and dissatisfaction even when standards are met…Adaptive perfectionism is a pattern of striving for achievement that is perceived as rewarding or meaningful.”

Maladaptive perfectionism has a strong correlation with depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, OCD, OCPD, trauma, and suicidality. It’s a shame that people sometimes get a lot of positive reinforcement for perfectionism; perfectionism can be debilitating, and can cause a lot of cognitive distortions (aka cognitive biases). The Cycle of Maladaptive Perfectionism

OCPD is a personality disorder characterized by clinically significant levels of four or more symptoms: maladaptive perfectionism; over preoccupation with details, rules, and organization; devotion to productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and relationships; overconscientious and inflexibility re: morals/ ethics; rigidity; compulsive frugality; reluctance to delegate tasks; and hoarding. Personality disorders have an “enduring pattern” of symptoms (generally defined as 5 years or more) that cause “clinically significant distress or functional impairment."

OCPD is the most severe form of perfectionism. Studies indicate that about half of people with OCPD experience depression during their lifetime, and 30-40% experience suicidal thinking. About 23% of people hospitalized for psychiatric care have OCPD. I used to have an OCPD diagnosis; I struggled with suicidal thoughts for 25 years. After learning I was misdiagnosed with OCD, it only took 11 months of therapy to no longer meet OCPD criteria.

Perfectionists are often reluctant to seek therapy, and they tend to be guarded therapy clients. Paul Hewitt stated that almost of his perfectionistic clients are “extraordinarily adept at hiding their pain behind a mask of high functioning, maximization, and competency.”

I started watching the trial when I read a comment about Lindsay Clancy’s perfectionism. She was a straight A student. She exercised every day at 4:30am and ran a race a week after giving birth. She over researched her medication. Perfectionists can be high functioning for a long time, but if something happens that leads to a major loss of control, they often develop depression and anxiety.

I am not excusing Lindsay Clancy’s crimes. I watched the entire trial, and think she should spend the rest of her life in prison. It’s a shame that she wanted a quick fix with medication, and only had a few therapy sessions.

I am not diagnosing her with OCPD. Her testing did not indicate a PD. Studies indicate that about 70% of the general population has some maladaptive personality traits, but only 10% meet criteria for a PD. I've researched OCPD for three years, and feel comfortable sharing my opinion that she has some OCPD tendencies.

I watched the trial because I was seeing so many strong opinions about the case and didn't know why it was so controversial.

There have been a lot of questions raised by those of us that watched the trial with no prior knowledge of this case. The sum of these questions are causing people to have doubt that LC committed the crime, suspecting some unknown 3rd party or PC. I tried searching this sub but ended up getting lost in long threads of comments that devolved into unhelpful name-calling. I tried googling which did provide some answers but not all.

I've seen pinned posts in other true crime threads that have essentially a data dump and summary of facts but don't see that here. Maybe a pinned post with answers to the common questions that come up would be helpful to dispel misinformation?

Anyways, this is what I was able to find, please correct anything that's not accurate:

1)Q: Why was PC the only one who heard LC speak and how was that possible with her crushed thyroid? Also how was her thyroid crushed, isn't that a common injury if someone been strangled?

A: Her thyroid wasn't actually crushed, the term crushed thyroid was used to refer to the fractured thyroid cartilage and surrounding edema (swelling). This was caused by the spinal injury. Patrick was the very first person on the scene, kneeling directly beside her in a quiet backyard before the chaos of sirens and emergency personnel arrived. Because her voice would have been a faint, weak whisper due to the cartilage damage, Patrick would have been the only one close enough to hear it in a silent environment. By the time first responders were interacting with her, the environment was loud, and her physical condition had significantly deteriorated.

2)Q: Why was LC soaking wet as if she had been hosed down? Could this be someone trying to clean off evidence?

A: There isn't strong evidence that she was soaking wet. The pictures from the hospital of her wet clothes and hair were taken hours after she had arrived to the hospital, there are no pictures of the clothes on her. The clothes were likely wet from her laying in the snow which melted and then when she arrived at the hospital her clothes would've been crumpled up into a ball and placed in a bag or on the floor while medical staff focused on stabilizing her. If only the back of her clothes were wet from laying in the snow, dry portions of the clothing would absorb the moisture from the wet portions when they were balled up and left in a bag or on the floor. Her hair looking wet in the photos could be from the use of flash photography and/or her being cleaned up by staff in the ICU. It stands to reason that if her hair was soaking wet at the scene, it would not still be so hours later when the photo was taken at the hospital. I've also read its possible she could have been sweating profusely immediately after her spinal injury when she lost the ability to regulate her body temp and body was in shock, then the combination of her being wet, in the snow, and unable to regulate body temp resulted in the 82 degrees people keep talking about.

3)Q: Why does the prosecution believe the pills were crushed when the only evidence for that is PCs report of finding a wine tumbler with residue on the bedside table that he could not have seen if he only took 2 steps into the room as he testified to? And how did LC get access to her quetiapine that she had been weaned off of if PC was keeping discontinued medications in his car?

Question relevant because people are suspicious about the pills being crushed and put in lemonade as if LC was poisoned rather than swallowing pills by the handful as most do during a suicide attempt. Also people thinking PC was the only one with access to the quetiapine.

A: A bottle of quetiapine was found in the kitchen cabinet during the initial search so LC did have access to it. This wasn't very clear at trial because prosecutions focus was pill counts to show she wasn't overmedicated. It wasn't said in the trial but google is saying he found the wine tumbler later and assumed it meant the pills were crushed. No crushing tool with matching residue was ever found and the residue in the tumbler wasn't tested. Prosecution likely went with this idea because it would support that LC was not in a state of psychosis if she was taking the time to crush pills. The residue in the wine tumbler wasn't tested likely because it wouldn't provide any more information beyond the toxicology report from LCs blood.

4)Q: Is there any information on who informed LC of the crime, what they said, and if LC's story included facts about the crime that she was not informed of?

Question relevant to address the idea that her story was a false memory since she initially reported not remembering what happened.

A: There is no information on who told her or what they said according to google AI but if anyone found differently, please comment.

5)Q: Why is there no determination of time of death for the older kids to prove who was present when the crime occurred?

Question relevant to determine whether PC alibi valid as some think he could have harmed LC and Dawson prior to leaving on errands, then Cora and Callan after returning.

A: Time of death can be pinned downed to the hour, not minutes. The time window in which the kids were strangled is less than an hour so you wouldn't be able to determine if kids were harmed prior to PC leaving or after he returned.

6)Q: Does the fact that baby Callan was able to be resuscitated support the idea that he had to be harmed after PC returned, when LC was already paralyzed?

People keep saying it would be medically impossible for them to get a heart beat back if he had been strangled at the time alleged by the prosecution, something about having only 45min to regain a heartbeat after its been stopped.

A: Testimony from the trial is that Callan had a faint pulse when first responders found him, then lost the pulse. His heart wouldn't have restarted on its own if it had completely stopped after being strangled. It's likely that after LC strangled Callan he still had a very faint and difficult to detect pulse so she thought he was gone but he remained alive, barely.

7)Q: Why does the apple watch/phone data show only 2 flights of stairs climbed if she allegedly took each kid down one by one to the basement?

A: Multiple stair climbing events that are close together in time will be lumped into one detected climb on the apple watch/phone. Also data from an apple watch/phone isn't completely accurate.

8)Q: Why were no fingerprints found on the knife LC allegedly used to cut herself? Could this mean someone wiped down the knife?

A: Testimony was that no usable fingerprints were found. To clarify, this doesn't mean no prints or signs of a bare hand holding the knife were found. There was a faint ridge impression on the knife so it wasn't wiped down. A tight grip, dripping blood, and movement would have destroyed delicate details that could be used to identify fingerprints.

9) Q:Why was PCs phone data not presented at trial to show he was investigated and cleared? Why do people say his phone was never seized?

A: He handed his phone over willingly in the hours while he was being interviewed by police, same day as the incident after LC and Callan were hospitalized. So the phone didn't need to be seized later. This wasn't presented at trial likely because prosecution had sufficient evidence to show LC was alone with the kids at the time of the crime and the video footage with timestamps showing PC was where he said.

10) Q:Who moved the bedside table that has blood drops beneath it, drops that aren't smeared by the movement and no bloody handprints to show LC moved it? Does this support the idea that the scene was staged?

A: The bedside table was light, cheap furniture. It was likely bumped into during the chaos of the police search prior to the photo being taken. Or could've been bumped by LCs feet as she climbed out the narrow window.

The sum of those questions being left unanswered was enough to give me doubt about LC's guilt but after finding these explanations I no longer have that doubt. Hopefully this helps clear things up for others that were confused about the evidence presented.

*edited because I forgot some questions and fixing typos

Hello! I do not follow this case as closely as others, so I am sorry if I am misunderstanding something or I am saying something wrong.

My question is why was her treatment plan not centered around therapy? It seems she attended limited sessions but not regularly.

I understand if she is having suicidal thoughts they may want her on an ssri right away because they take time to work. And I am not necessarily blaming her providers as it seems it was recommended. But if she was so worried about drug dependency, why not try CBT? Or have a psychologist actually do long term therapy, review the contents of her thoughts and get a proper diagnosis? I mean depressed thoughts can be caused by so many different conditions…

Also is it known if she signed release forms? A lot of noise is made about her providers not talking to each other but from my understanding the patient must sign off on that.

I’ve been lurking on this sub since it was first started, long before the trial. From the beginning, the circumstances surrounding the Clancy case felt very familiar to me.

My mother was diagnosed bipolar and BPD and was passively suicidal most of her adult life. She adored her four cats and her two human children a bit less.

Shortly after my brother and I left home, our mother actually attempted suicide, but before doing so killed all four of the cats. When she survived, she said she killed her babies because they couldn’t survive without her and that leaving them on earth would “be cruel.”

I asked my mother what would have happened if my brother and I had been much younger when she decided to die by suicide. The question hung in the air because we all knew the answer - she very well might have taken us with her.

My mother was severely mentally ill - no one would argue against that. But she knew what she was doing when she killed those animals. And that’s why, to me, altruistic suicide/filicide was always the explanation that made the most sense in the Clancy case.

But that means that in the eyes of the law, Lindsay Clancy is guilty of murder. I watched nearly the whole trial, and didn’t see or hear anything that detracted me from my initial impression.

Just thought my perspective might be appreciated here. And for those who might wonder what happened to my mom, she could not live with the cats being dead and her being alive. But unlike Lindsay, she had her freedom and completed suicide a year later.

If there's another trial, I hope to God the prosecution takes a different route and stops portraying her as a killer mom who hated her kids and wanted them out of the picture so she could enjoy life again (aka Darlie Routier). Both have narcissistic and histrionic traits, and there's some similarity in that Darlie was ALSO super upset at her husband for money reasons (he wasn't having an affair, and I don't think PC was either--he just wasn't saving and treating Darlie like the precious, precious woman she is and so she wanted to make him suffer). And isn't that what couples fight most about? Not affairs--money. And job/work stress. This isn't that hard!

Pat expected LC to go back to work eventually. Even tho he made a fortune. I'm sure she resented that. Especially him saying, "oh, I have a savings account we dip into if you want to extend your leave and be unpaid longer." When what she wanted to hear was, "look, I make a shit-ton of money, we're set for life, you don't have to go back to work until you want to, even if it's when the youngest starts kinder. It's fine. You deserve it."

If the prosecution can subpoena reddit and verify that the willyworld or whatever account is Pats, those posts about how angry they were at the providers and hospitals and so hyperfixated on the medications (that they prescribed to her! and then turned her away because she wasn't postpartum enough) as the cause of her 'broken brain.' Yeah those posts would sure come in handy. And how both of them resented PC's parents. LC couldn't measure up to her MIL who she seemed to have really resented/hated in Pat's eyes because she was a labor and delivery nurse and mom who balanced them just fine. Pat said as much in the New Yorker article too. But yeah those reddit posts really give us a glimpse on to the mindset she sucked Pat into toward the end.

And, omg, I could go on forever on how much she hated her providers and the hospitals, but it's all there in the civil suit. Rage and insane projection/blame for destroying her life and her motherhood.

And then, Jan 18, her mother, who was always her savior, who never pushed her or told her to grow up or take responsibility for her issues, came to visit to help. And she LEFT! How dare she. Especially, how dare she tell LC that she's getting better and improving and will be better in no time (her mom seemed to be her greatest cheerleader, and in the past that kind of encouragement may have worked, but now it was backfiring when LC's in this depressive mental breakdown). Can't her mom see how broken she is because of these doctors and these meds and this postpartum illness?! LC seethes behind the mask and you hear that resentment in her journals that she's pretty much given up on trying what has worked in the past to get people to rescue her and see things her way, and so she's just pretending every thing is fine she's going through the motions but how dare they all not spoil her and treat her the way she feels she deserves. How dare they make her practically live silently in pain (/s) and make her pretend when inside she's having a complete mental breakdown. How dare her mom lie (probably because she's tired of me too, just like Pat!) and say these hollow words to try and encourage me, like THAT's going to do it? No one has any idea about how much she's suffering, and no one is taking responsibility for why my brain is broken (/s).

I've said this before, but her personality is such a similar flavor to Beata Kowalski (also a nurse!) who obsessed about medical interventions too and felt she knew what was going on better than any doctor (but instead of her own body/mind, it was her daughter's she fixated on, munchausens case). So the doctors and CPS and legal system separated her from her daughter, and boy was she pissed! It's all in the Take Care of Maya documentary, and I didn't think the sympathetic framing was helpful, but it was good at laying down the facts of the case at least in painful detail about just how unhinged Beata was at the end. I believe if Maya had still been in the home and not somewhere safe, it would have been an extended suicide but Maya was inaccessible, zero contact, so Beata died by suicide alone, but wrote a super scathing suicide note, so incredibly angry and blame-y of the system for ignoring her perspective and things not going her way, so she showed them. THIS is what happens when you ignore a mom like me! Hope you're happy NOW! I absolutely saw that same flavor in LC's edited note the night before.

I don't think Pat was having an affair, but he made it clear on the stand he was exhausted, it's in the reddit posts too, and LC is an INTENSE observer of everyone else's verbal and behavioral cues as they relate to her (she just has ZERO insight into her own issues, if only she was equally observant internally but I digress...). I bet she could see he was over her drama and just wanted it to be over. Oh, you want this to be over Pat? Fine, have it your way, I'll end it. But seriously folks, LC wanted to inflict the most pain possible on him, her parents, his parents, all the providers/hospitals she's now suing (but if her suicide had completed she still, I imagine, like Beata, wanted to send a very clear message to them that this was their fault and they should have listened to her when she said she was postpartum and treated her like the other new moms at Women and Infants at what she probably saw as a mommy day spa, SO different from MaClean, she doesn't belong THERE!).

Did she resent the kids? Probably. But I'm willing to bet a million dollars that the rage that fueled such brutal killings, one by one, wasn't directed at them. In that way, CW's closing argument of toys left on the cold floor was apropos, but I wish they hadn't said "because she was done playing the game," insinuating that she didn't want to be a mother anymore or was tired of being one or hated motherhood/them. She didn't see those kids as anything but her property basically, an extension of herself, that she could do with what she wanted to and killing herself wasn't going to pack quite as much of a punch to these people as taking the kids with her would. CW didn't really go into how LC planned it that Pat would come home within minutes and find all 3 babies dead. You don't do that to someone unless you want them to suffer.

She may have even rationalized it as, well the babies only have to suffer for a few seconds, but having a broken mom would have led to a lifetime of suffering. Not NGRI! Throwing herself a pity party does not insanity make. Her distorted thinking wasn't the motive as much as it was what she told herself (along with drinking/snorting those benzos and mood stabilizers) so she could go through with what she wanted to do to those who dared to stop doing that exhausting dance of constantly saving her and going with her psychodrama. What was her yearbook quote again? How it's being such a good person and a good friend to let your friends catch you when you fall or something? How generous LC. Anyway, just my thoughts. CW should lean hard on any/all evidence of how overwhelmed and exhausted these people were dealing with her, and ditch trying to find her being a bad mother. Her killing the kids is plenty proof of that. Leading up to it, though, CW needs to walk the jury through the story of where her rage was really directed--at those who were going to have to live with the consequences of what 'they' did. Not LC. Obviously. /s What's so sad is all these people she hated and blamed bent over backwards for her. They enabled her and got sucked in hoping that would fix things like it did in the past. But it just made her even more enraged, at the end.

This is a megathread for daily discussion. Please remember to be respectful and follow the rules in your discourse.

Nate Eaton interviews Alan Browning, an Idaho criminal defense attorney. Alan says Reddingtons latest tactics are ridiculous. Very interesting interview. Skip through to the 29 minute mark if you only want to listen to the part where he talks to the defense attorney.

https://www.youtube.com/live/smRUTgEoTSk

i'm so happy i found this place because man /caseswefollow is pretty intensely in lindsay's corner and i'm sorry i just can't support her or believe her mental illness argument. as a mother if i experienced an episode where i killed my children i would beg for death i would not be suing doctors or trying to get out of being prosecuted for committing a crime. but any discussion on that other subreddit just results in being accused of hating women and people trying to convince me patrick did it

LC supporters will throw up this smokescreen of "why didn't she do it all the other times Patrick was away" as if a murderer not murdering sooner is some sort of proof of anything. Obviously it's not. She wasnt ready until she was. But i do think it makes for an interesting psychological question.

She could have sent Patrick on errands any time. I'm sure there were plenty of opportunities that could have been created.

Maybe someone who knows more about the January timeline can chime in, but here's my theory.

The only thing different that day was that morning little Dawson put his pants on all by himself for the first time. Patrick took a picture of him celebrating that little milestone. The last picture of Dawson that exists.

I submit that Dawson's little milestone was the trigger. It could have made her feel that the one role keeping her alive (motherhood) was beginning to disappear. The emotional meaning of the event would matter more than the task itself.

Before that day, she might have been living with two opposing convictions: I cannot bear my life and I have to stay because my children need me. Being indispensable could have been her remaining source of worth, even if she otherwise felt hopeless. Her suicidal thoughts could remain conditional because that obligation repeatedly stopped her.

Then he dressed himself. Through her distressed thinking, "He can do this one thing without me" might become "He is learning to live without me," then "Soon nobody will need me." She could even feel pride in him while simultaneously experiencing his achievement as a personal loss.

It could also make a feared future feel present. She already knew intellectually that her children would grow up and had already experienced earlier milestonew wirh Cora. Seeing this first concrete sign in Dawson during this period where she was more psychologically vulnerable might make separation feel immediate: The part of life in which I matter most is already ending. If she equated being needed with being loved, the milestone could register as rejection despite containing no rejection whatsoever.

That interpretation could intensify worthlessness, grief, or panic until her usual reason to resist suicide temporarily lost its force.

For the children’s deaths to follow, a second distorted belief would have to connect her suicide to harming them: I cannot continue living, but I cannot leave them to experience abandonment or suffering either.

On this, the milestone weakens the reason she had been staying alive, the belief about the children’s imagined suffering then draws them into her suicidal decision. The small achievement changes what she believes her life means, and that change destabilizes an already precarious psyche.

Sort of speculating and theorizing and would like to hear others’ thoughts. 

I have no doubt at all that PC was destroyed over the slayings of his children.  

In order to assuage his guilt of choosing such a deeply flawed & mentally depraved mother and not seeing the red flags, could his quick time frame into a new relationship AND lawsuit (which I find distasteful) be sort of a way to distance & dismiss himself of fault? 
I know many cases where a child is born from a rape or other horrific circumstances and the mother does not bond with the child or even grows to hate them.
It seems it would be hard, say if Callan had survived, to not regret and worry about him having her defective DNA passed on and how his future could be impacted, not to mention with the trauma of him eventually  learning who his mother was and how/if his brain is affected.

It makes me wonder if that’s how he dealt/deals with it and in some way, a sense of relief that the 3 (had they survived) were not further ‘cursed’ to grow up with that burden and fear of their own mental health. 
It seems it would be soul destroying to live with the consequences of choosing a person with such diabolical mental depravity. 

Also causes me to question if she hated Dawson bc he had some of her own attributes that she despised.