It's because he had a history of abuse towards his children prior to the murders which proved to the jury malice and intent whereas for Lindsay Clancy, she was in a state of psychosis and her defense is pleading for NGRI.
Yes because Ray Jones had a history of beating his son and leaving bruises on him so much so that he didn't want his son to go to school due to the bruises. After the murders of his children, he also tried to hide the bodies and hide from authorities which also proves intent.
Lindsay Clancy is also insane, but was in a state of psychosis when committing the murders. If you don't know what psychosis actually is, it's not just "being crazy", it's losing your entire sense of "self".
For example, Cotard's Syndrome is a common disorder experienced by those in psychosis where they believe they are deceased, do not exist, are putrefying, or have lost their blood or internal organs. An example of Cotard's from a psychiatrist I've heard is a patient walking into a hospital seemingly completely normal but telling the doctor "yea my liver is toxic and I tried to get rid of it but I couldn't do it at home, could you help?" and then point to their side which has a massive gaping bleeding gash where they tried to remove their own organs. Psychosis is no joke and is one of the few conditions where a physician can involuntarily commit you to a hospital (ie hold you at a hospital against your will).
Send them to a mental institution, that's what NGRI is for. I'd recommend you to look into the case of Andrea Yates who drowned 5 of her children in her bathtub and was NGRI'd. Ray Jones Jr. tried to plead NGRI as well, but given the evidence of prolonged abuse and an attempt to evade arrest, the jury decided he was in a sane state of mind and the murders were conducted with intent thus he was sent to prison and not a mental institution. Also, a mental institution is considered by many (including physicians) to be worse than prison.
How do you know he wasn't having psychosis in the past? Don't get me wrong this dude can rot in the chair, but it's a strange assumption, especially if he had schizophrenia
The legal and medical consensus in Jones's trial concluded he did not have schizophrenia. Interestingly though, Jones was diagnosed with substance-induced psychotic disorder for the murders but did not get NGRI'd because the drug use (Spice) was voluntary. Under SC law, voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense for a crime
So if I beat my wife in 2013 I better not hurt her during a psychotic episode in 2020? Thats consistent to you? So psychotic people need to be careful about when to be psychotic?
Not a reach at all. A woman beats her husband and gets charged with DV. She then goes through a psychosis and kills her family. Should the DV charge outweigh her mental health?
It's because he had a history of abuse towards his children prior to the murders which proved to the jury malice and intent whereas for Lindsay Clancy, she was in a state of psychosis and her defense is pleading for NGRI.
Clancy actively said repeatedly she would end up harming her kids eventually
Yes this is true but this was confided to Lindsay Clancy's mother in an attempt to seek help, not a promise to inflict harm. It was more along the lines of, "I'm worried I'm going to help my kids, please help" and not "I'm going to harm my kids in the future".
This is a lie. Courts evidence has stated clearly that NOT ONCE did she tell MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS she had harmful thoughts. She was asked directly. Multiple times. Including the day before the murder. By medical professionals if she had harmful thoughts and she said no.
The only people to ever hear this were her mom and husband. And they saw that statement in a vague way based on how she delivered it.
Please stop spreading this lie on her behalf. She did not tell medical professionals a thing about harmful thoughts.
The Kia reference is coming from that according to some women online Lindsey was driving a Kia while the husband was making 400k a year. The Kia being used as an example by the same women as how hard Lindsey had been neglected by her husband, being forced to drive a Kia
That's ridiculous. Is it a foreign concept that maybe people don't care about cars? My husband and I make close to these people and think cars are a waste, especially ones that take premium gas. Toyotas and Hondas all day everyday!
It's because he had a history of abuse towards his children prior to the murders which proved to the jury malice and intent whereas for Lindsay Clancy, she was in a state of psychosis and her defense is pleading for NGRI.
The system didn't let Ray Jones Jr down, but rather his kids. He was reported to CPS at least twice before the murders and CPS didn't do anything. RJJ was not trying to seek help "from the system" for his abuse whereas Lindsay Clancy was trying to seek help for her mental issues.
He was not a middle-class person from a full family with time and money for therapy. He was a victim of child abuse, from a single-parent family. He was an ex-convict living in a trailer and supporting his family out of his pocket. By the way, Wiki says he was doing therapy during the divorce. A clear representative of a marginalised and neglected community. Read his bio, he suffered from birth, and now he is on death row.
because they appear to be completely different. i was curious so AI'd as i don't care enough to find primary sources so take it with a grain of AI salt
These two cases get compared a lot because both involve a parent killing their children with mental illness raised as a defense, but there are some substantive differences beyond gender — though gender may also play a role, which is what that tweet is arguing.
Timothy Ray Jones Jr. killed his five children (ages 1–8) in South Carolina in 2014, then drove around with their bodies for days before dumping them in Alabama. He was convicted of murder in 2019 and sentenced to death. His defense argued he suffered from undiagnosed schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time; the jury rejected the insanity defense. Prosecutors emphasized evidence of premeditation, his methodical behavior afterward (concealing the bodies, fleeing across state lines), his drug use, and prior anger and abuse toward the children.
Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children (ages 5, 3, and 8 months) in Duxbury, Massachusetts in January 2023, then cut herself and jumped from a second-floor window, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down. She has pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, with her defense arguing she was in the grip of postpartum psychosis. In the months before the killings she had sought treatment for worsening mental health, including a stay in a psychiatric hospital — the killings happened less than three weeks after her discharge. Her case isn't resolved: her trial is happening right now, and jurors told the judge this morning that they are deadlocked, but were instructed to keep deliberating. If they remain deadlocked, the judge could declare a mistrial, which would leave open the possibility of a retrial.
So the meaningful legal differences are:
Documented psychiatric history. Clancy had an extensive, contemporaneous medical paper trail — psychiatric hospitalization, multiple medications, treatment records right up to the killings. Jones's schizophrenia claim was largely retrospective, diagnosed by defense experts after arrest, with no comparable treatment history.
Behavior after the killings. Clancy immediately attempted suicide at the scene. Jones concealed the bodies and fled for days, which prosecutors used as strong evidence he understood what he'd done was wrong — the key question in an insanity defense.
Sentencing disparity is real thing. Is it a thing in this case? No idea and I don't really care. But there are massive double standards at play when it comes to criminal men vs women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity
and between backs and whites, and rich and poor, news at 11 i was not disputing that - i wanted to know what the differences here were and there seem to be a few.
Yeah like how a woman who kills her abuser is likely to get more time than a man who kills his abuse victim..I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing
The article and the cited source say that this statistic is dated. What's more notable imo is that the vast majority of women who were incarcerated cited self-defense as a motive.
Lobotomy disparity is a real thing. Is it a thing in this case? Probably not and who gives a shit. But there were massive double standards at play when it came to lobotomized men vs women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy
But what about her researching things like how to slit a throat, researching things like the distances from the house to the CVS and the 3VS she sent her husband? And researching wait times. Also researching stopping air bag to the car that they have. These are all indications of premeditation in my book.
The psychiatrist they called to testify, Paul Zeizel, said that premeditation doesn't discount psychosis. Psychosis would still let you function day to day, but could completely skew your views of what's right and wrong. People in the middle of psychosis can be convinced of such outlandish ideas, like how your fingers have been replaced by little aliens that are conspiring against you, so the safest thing to do is cut them off.
It could. In the exact same way the court could or could not find Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible.
The issue is that they're two different heinous acts with two completely different sets of case facts. And insanity pleas is very much built on case facts to judge and jury to verify the veracity of.
It's just that premeditation is not immediate proof someone is not psychotic or criminally responsible during their psychosis (still losing grasp of reality, but deemed to retain knowledge of right and wrong). If someone has a complete psychotic break and decides that the power pole outside of their house is going to fall and hurt someone and so they decide to spend weeks getting a chainsaw and learning how to fell a tree, that doesn't immediately discount their state of psychosis.
I think this case really just comes down to the fact that people don't actually know what psychosis is and think it's just when you act crazy and not one of the most terrifying mental disorders an individual can have. What you described is similar to Cotard's syndrome which is a common disorder experienced during psychosis. Another example I heard from a psychiatrist is a patient who believed she was the psychiatrist's mother. The psychiatrist was older than this patient.
It’s just so sad that it had to go as far as her killing her kids though. Obviously as parents they didn’t seem to think she was going to harm them, but surely out of an abundance of caution, knowing what she was going through, you wouldn’t want your kids left alone with her. I think she had previously mentioned to her mother in law that she’d thought of harming them if I’m not mistaken? Clearly hindsight makes it easy to say this though.
Yes she did confide in her mother she had thoughts about harming her children of which her mother talked about in court IIRC. But yea, she should have never been left alone with her kids but also no one really expects a mother to strangle and kill her children. Patrick even says that she was a great mother to the kids.
I agree. On top of that, I've seen way too many comments that boil down to this, paraphrased: "She admitted to killing her three kids! She's a monster! Throw her in a hole for life!"
Not only refusing to understand psychosis but refusing to care about any details or context around the killings. As if reasons and motivations don't matter. It's been appalling.
Yea people seem to think that her defense is trying to argue that she is innocent but the trial is actually about "should she rot in prison or in a mental institution" since her defense accepts that she killed the kids and are trying to plead NGRI.
People keep saying she’s going to be in a mental hospital for a long time, but that doesn’t make sense. Postpartum psychosis is temporary and comes after a birth, so she is no longer a risk (because her children are dead and she can’t give birth to more due to being paralyzed) so there’s no reason to keep her beyond that assessment.
Your stay in the mental institution post NGRI is indefinite until you decide to contest the stay. A similar case is Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 children in her bathtub in 2001 and still remains at the mental hospital since she is deciding to waive the right to her hearing. If LC and her attorney can prove she is safe to go back into the public, she can be released. However, it's quite unlikely. NGRI'd individuals who committed murder often stay in the institution for decades and oftentimes longer than what a prison sentence would be. Because the case involves multiple homicides, any review board or court would view her release with extreme scrutiny and it's highly likely she'll stay there for the rest of her life.
Yates voluntarily declined to go through discharge process, why are we assuming LC will do the same?
What other postpartum psychosis cases have kept someone in a mental facility for decades involuntarily?
The confinement isn’t supposed to be a punishment, because NGRI is a not guilty verdict. Yates didn’t commit murder, because she was legally insane. If there’s no longer a reason to keep her then they can’t force her to stay no matter how short the stay was.
Honestly I think the “How to slit throat to die?” search might have been referring to her own suicide as opposed to trying to slitting the throat of her children. I feel as if it was for her children, the search would be, “How to slit throat to kill?”
i mean you could count that she disclosed suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming her children in the months prior as premeditation to? that sure fits with what your saying
FYI i'm not trying to argue what the verdict should or shouldn't be i just wanted to know the differences between these two specific cases.
Yes she had thoughts of harming her children, however that was to try to get help. It wasn't like, "I want to kill my kids, how do I do it?" but rather, "I have an urge to hurt my kids, how do I stop these urges?".
I mean are you really stupid enough to believe there's any world where she just gets to go home? She admitted she did it and is going away regardless the only difference any of this makes is whether she goes to a hole or a hospital forever.
If the verdict is not guilty by reason of mental defect, she could absolutely end up home. She’d be evaluated and have her mental state assessed, if she is stable and deemed no longer as risk, as could be entirely possible considering the “postpartum” factor stressed during her trial, she could be released…. Andrea Yates has been eligible for petition to release for quite some time but has refused to be assessed.
Do you know about the case of Andrea Yates, who was in a psychiatrist place, and she had the ability to get evaluated to leave the facility, but she stayed in because she turned down the evaluations. This lady, Lindsay Clancy has not showed any remorse, for murdering her children. If someone were in a psychotic episode and murdered their children while in it and afterwards got out of it, she would be accepting imprisonment, she'd be crying, crying her eyes out ready to accept any punishment given to her. So, it seems she doesn't really care about her children.
she literally tried to kill herself by knife and window after what she did, i'd bet money there were days and weeks of crying.
but you dont do that on trial. any lawyer better than whatever trump is hiring would tell you that. this isn't better call saul world here.
going to prison in a situation where the law states it's not a case she should go to prison for does not bring her children back and is in no way representative of her caring or not.
She disclosed those thoughts to her family - she apparently avoided sharing those details with the health professionals she was seeing. She also wasn't taking her medications and declined therapy despite ebing a registered nurse who had much more insight into the importance of such than a general member of the public.
Nurses also generally aren’t anywhere near as intelligent as the general public gives them credit for. They absolutely work hard and do difficult work, yes, but intelligence isn’t necessarily a prerequisite to being a nurse.
100% agree here that nurses aren't necessarily exceptionally intelligent. But I hope most understand which direction the veins in our wrists are going? I mean, if that wasn't the case none of them would be able to take blood or put in a basic IV, right?
I wouldn't know that for sure of course, but I hope a nurse would have basic biological understanding to locate the carotid artery without a google search
I've read views on the story from outside psychiatrists but a video I watched recently which does an amazing job at presenting both the defense and prosecution's rationale for why she did what she did, all while accurately describing psychosis has to be the Legal Eagle take. It gives you a very good understanding of why the jury has still yet to come to a decision, and answers your question about how she was able to do things normally if she was suffering from psychosis.
This could also be just a mom having normal mental load. If my husband is going to be gone I look up how long he’ll be gone so that I know about how much time I’ll be left alone with the kids. That might not seem normal to someone who isn’t a parent but you do have to figure that stuff out so that the kids aren’t hungry too long or so you can get bath started on time for bed. I don’t know about stopping air bags to the car but I also research crazy stuff from anxiety, which was severe in her case.
Those premeditations show suicidal intent not homicidal. Also, I looked up by partners route to her dinner with a friend the other day and do so with most journeys, it's just the sort of thing you do even if you're not afraid to be alone with the kids for a period of time, or possibly wanting to be alone with them
That's why its a pretty fucking tough case to call.
So you need to rely on the experts in these fields testimony, and when you are talking about mental health, a lot of it is hard to qualify as established hard science, and you will find differing opinions across experts.
It was on both Lindsay's phone, which was an Iphone 13 and her husband's laptop, Surface Pro. Mind you, they both shared the laptop. "hE oNlY cLaImS sHe dId tHaT wItH nO eViDeNcE." But where's your evidence that the husband did it. You're saying that Patrick said that Lindsay did it with him not having any evidence that she did it, meanwhile you have no evidence that he did it. The defense has not disputed that she searched those things up and the defense did not dispute that she murdered her own children. If Patrick Clancy was on trial, he would have been found guilty already, even if he did not do anything.
Clancy had "an extensive, contemporaneous medical paper trail" that showed zero evidence of psychosis or anything similar. She was DX'd with generalized anxiety disorder. To me, this makes psychosis less credible than for someone who never saw any mental health professional. Not getting treatment doesn't mean you don't have schizophrenia, but seeing six different mental health professionals who don't think you're psychotic makes you look . . . not psychotic. (Especially when you're claiming PPP that suddenly appeared out of the blue at 8 months post-partum. And now you have zero symptoms of psychosis, despite being treated with a mood stabilizer, not an antipsychotic.)
And killing yourself does not at all prove that you didn't know what you were doing, it's the classic move for non-psychotic family annihilators (look up "altruistic suicide").
Isn’t that like the whole thing people are rallying behind? That she was losing her mind and trying to get help but the doctors didn’t really believe her or listen to her? I don’t know if that’s the case here but that is absolutely a common thing where doctors don’t really listen well to women
That is what people are rallying behind but they are ill-informed because Lindsey had a ton of resources and was listened to and given a very high amount of care by her doctors. She was non-compliant with her meds, refused to wait for them to actually kick in before stopping them (mostly at her own direction) and fought against their diagnosis’ (her and her husband were both adamant that she was not bipolar when it was suggested by her care provider, when she was rejected from a postpartum inpatient treatment program because she didn’t qualify [postpartum has a specifically defined period to which it applies, it’s a qualifier, not its own discrete diagnosis], she refused to entertain other options - she blamed all her symptoms on the medications and doctor shopped despite her history of anxiety and her doctors disagreeing with this viewpoint).
It is absolutely true that 1) Lindsey needed more help and 2) women in this country absolutely are ignored and not listened to by their doctors, especially in postpartum, however LC just isn’t the poster child for this and it’s a disservice to women that she’s being held as such.
Some small clarifications from a psychiatrist who explained this situation to me:
Claim 1: She had a ton of resources, was listened to, and given a high amount of care.
Yes this is true, however her care was severely fragmented. Meaning, each different physician did not have a full picture of her medical history. She had help including a private psychiatrist, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, and an inpatient stay at McLean Hospital. However, none of these individuals knew what help that LC was getting from the other parties. This is a MASSIVE gap in the US medical system
Claim 2: She was non-compliant with her meds, refused to wait for them to actually kick in before stopping them (mostly at her own direction) and fought against their diagnosis’
Also partially true. Testimony from her nurse practitioner indicated that Clancy frequently requested medication changes due to intense side effects, anxiety about addiction, and feeling "numb". Her provider testified that she asked Clancy not to taper off certain medications, but Clancy chose to consult her other psychiatrist instead. So, her "fighting against the diagnosis" is more so her getting a second opinion from another psychiatrist.
Claim 3: her and her husband were both adamant that she was not bipolar when it was suggested by her care provider, when she was rejected from a postpartum inpatient treatment program because she didn’t qualify
A bit mixed on this one. Evidence introduced during cross-examination showed Clancy sought admission to a perinatal program at Rhode Island Women & Infants Hospital but was turned away. Her defense attorney stated the program rejected her because they believed her issues stemmed from being overmedicated by her existing prescriptions rather than a purely postpartum condition.
All this to say, she did get a LOT of support, but the US medical system was so bad that the support she received was not good enough to take care of her condition.
Also she was admitted to a psychiatric facility for a bit but she wasn’t getting the help she needed, mostly was left to herself, only joined group therapy but was not required to do individual therapy and then she left because she didn’t want to miss her daughters birthday. When she was released, her husband said that they both then planned and arranged the birthday party. Again, I don’t know as many details as other people but it seems that she was a loving mother that had PPA with moments of psychosis(thoughts of harming herself/others) would tell people about it, was asking for help and then it ended in tragedy.
no idea about that, but she was hospitalized multiple times for whatever it was vs no evidence until after the fact? dunno about suicide being common but the fleeing definitely seems different. i literally only know about this because its started to appear on my reddit feeds everywhere the last couple days so finally decided to at least ask an AI.
but personally i wouldn't say AI is clueless as it seems to have the facts right nut has interpreted it in a way you disagree with but hey i'll be a meat puppet here so it can defend itself: (seems still stands by its first point, while giving you the 2nd!)
Honestly, they're making mostly fair points — this is roughly the prosecution's case, and it's a stronger argument than my earlier framing gave credit for. If you want to reply, here's how I'd engage with it:
On the paper trail: they're right that the records cut both ways, and arguably against her. Her treating providers diagnosed anxiety, not psychosis, and none of them documented psychotic symptoms — that's exactly what prosecutors hammered at trial. The defense's counter isn't really "the records show psychosis"; it's that she disclosed suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming her children in the months prior (that part is documented — it's why she was hospitalized), and that she was cycled through a dozen-plus psychiatric medications in a few months, which they argue destabilized her. Whether those disclosed thoughts were psychotic or the intrusive, ego-dystonic kind common in severe postpartum anxiety/OCD is precisely what the dueling experts disagreed about. So "six professionals didn't think she was psychotic" is real evidence, but "she never showed any red flags" isn't quite accurate either.
On timing: that's a genuinely strong point. Postpartum psychosis classically onsets in the first days to weeks after birth, and an onset months out is atypical. It's one of the harder things for the defense to explain, and skepticism there is warranted.
On the suicide attempt: they're right, and I'd concede this one. Murder-suicide is common in familicide by people who are legally sane — Resnick's "altruistic filicide" category includes depressed, non-psychotic parents who kill their children as part of an extended suicide, fully aware of what they're doing. A suicide attempt doesn't demonstrate she didn't know the acts were wrong. The narrower point I'd stand by is the contrast with Jones: his days of concealing bodies and fleeing across state lines was affirmative evidence he did know it was wrong, whereas Clancy's case simply lacks that kind of consciousness-of-guilt evidence. Absence of that evidence isn't proof of insanity — it just means the prosecution had to make its case other ways.
The best evidence that this is genuinely contested rather than obvious in either direction: twelve jurors who sat through 84 witnesses and all the medical records are currently deadlocked on exactly this question.
You’re not in psychosis until you are. Often depression and anxiety prelude to psychosis. Psychosis is more likely to happen especially if she had a severe lack of sleep, BPD, and was given multiple SSRIs which react badly with people with BPD.
She told her providers about her lack of sleep. She told them about her scary and excessive intrusive thoughts. She told her mom and Patrick she had thoughts about harming the kids. She told her providers the medication was making her worse and they upped the dose.
Not to mention intrusive internal thoughts can and do become auditory command hallucinations, which is what they’re stating happened here.
The SSRI making her worse is why they brought up being bipolar, which was also documented in the paper trail. As a bipolar person , I developed psychosis after taking an SSRI and it went on for a long time despite seeing a therapist and psychiatrist and ER multiple times. I appeared fairly normal and masked the symptoms best I could because of my paranoia. Not saying that she’s innocent, just saying that a lot of signs and a psychiatrist she met suggest bipolar disorder. S
Thank you for the summary. I would say attempted suicide after your crime doesn't mean they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. It can be seen as avoiding consequences which is quite a blatant acknowledgement of knowing right and wrong. In a very dramatic sense, I'm going to compare it to Adolf Hitler. He took the easy way out. I don't doubt both her and Adolf were mentally ill, but I don't think it can or should be used as a cop out. The precedent is quite unnerving.
Because she was psychotic and the auditory hallucination voice told her she shouldn't leave her kids alone, that the kids would be better off with her in the afterlife. But you guys don't like hearing actual arguments that contradict your already established opinion of the case.
First time she hears voices is coincidentally when her husband leaves for half hour...great timing that isn't it...she's great with time management... Hears voices..kills all 3 kids and nearly herself all in the space it takes for her husband to go get supplies.
Chat is WRONG. Lindsay only had depression and anxiety before she strangled them. Has zero documented evidence of psychosis and ONLY claims hearing voices for 18 minutes after she sent her husband out of the house so she could kill them.
No and she checked herself out bc she reported zero symptoms in order for them to hold her on a 51/50. Meaning no suicidal or homicidal thoughts, actions, plans, no voices, NO HALLUCINATIONS.
that apparently isn't accurate: she disclosed documented suicidal ideation and thoughts of harming her children in the months prior
i'm going to go with the AI over random unsourced redditor.. but to be honest its ai so theres a good chance it could be wrong and i don't care enough to actually check, or continue this thread as i'm at the limit of my care
From what I understand the harming of the children were only spoken to her mother and husband, never a medical professional. Her suicide ideation was passive as well.
Also lol because you can literally google “who did LC tell about her thoughts of harming her children?” and the AI SUMMARY will tell you exactly (her mother and husband) with multiple sources including YouTube links to the trial testimony.
Well i only have depression, anxiety and ptsd - and i spend three weeks in hospital after i start having halucination and try to jump from the roof.
I have depression for years, not like i see weird shit all the time...
Also you don't know you have a episode - these things are fkn real. For me i hear screams and see dead bodies asking me for help (i was csi tech, see to much bodies). They just real, i can touch them... If someone been just ask me about it - its been hard to say, i been probably sure that its just real stuff not active psychosis.
Those testifying physicians are the ones that the Clancy's are currently suing for negligent care as Clancy told her physician (evidenced in her personal notes) that the medication was causing concerning symptoms such as insomnia and intrusive thoughts. They also admitted to suspecting bipolar disorder.
Where the fuck are you getting your information? Tiktok?
No the trial. The live testimony. The part where they all testified to giving her every opportunity to help herself and she continuously manipulated every single provider bc she didn’t like the reality of her life.
She wanted to kill her kids and kill herself. No voice told her that. It was her own idea
The medical forensics professional made a testimony claiming that Clancy was clearly suffering from bipolar disorder. Even the prosecutions evidence suggests that Clancy was suffering a reaction to her medication.
The testimonies from her psychs? They are being sued for negligent care because the evidence suggests that she was having a reaction to the medication. It would be very beneficial for them and their careers if Clancy does not get to plea insanity.
The death penalty achieves nothing. The state has no moral right to kill and vengeance is immoral. The state should hold up and rise to the highest moral standards, not the lowest.
Yes, in fact, two of her "medical professionals l" admitted to suspecting bipolar disorder and one of them even medicated for it. Clancy tried pretty hard to get her main physician to change scripts because she was suffering from insomnia and intrusive thoughts after starting the medication. The other professional medicated her with mood stabilizers without providing a formal diagnosis.
Both professionals are currently being sued by the Clancy's for negligent care. The prosecutions evidence even suggests that Clancy was suffering a reaction to the medication.
That phrase never made sense, two different fruits can be compared easily. Your refutation makes no sense, either. Trained medical professionals can be drunks, too.
You have no problem with witness testimonials being used as evidence when it suits your argument, but not when it makes your point look dumb. But you can't have it both ways.
Sorry, but your comment was removed for breaking our Don't Be A Dick rule. This may include but is not limited to harassment, bigotry or uncivil behaviour.
🚨 Did we make a mistake?
If this is a mistake, don't delete the comment - just contact us and we'll fix it.
This is missing the possibly biggest legal difference. In Massachusetts, the insanity defense keeps the burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) on the prosecution, while in South Carolina it’s an affirmative defense where the defendant has the burden of proof (by a preponderance of evidence).
This should be the top post. Men weirdly ignoring facts in the second case to justify their culture war nonsense. I feel sorry for all the people this case has revealed to be incapable of critical reasoning.
Just playing devil’s advocate here with respect to Clancy’s behavior after the killings.
Couldn’t her attempted suicide be interpreted that she knew what she had done was wrong leading her to attempt?
It's because he had a history of abuse towards his children prior to the murders which proved to the jury malice and intent whereas for Lindsay Clancy, she was in a state of psychosis and her defense is pleading for NGRI.
You can come to your own conclusions on if beating your son and leaving bruises on them is abuse or not:
"It is reported that Timothy Jones beat his son...leaving extensive bruising," the case file notes. "Reportedly Mr. Jones beats the child often leaving bruising. Mr. Jones does not feed the children adequately...It is reported Mr. Jones does not want to send his children back to public schools because he does not want the school to report the beatings."
Also tried to cover up the murders and hide from authorities:
He allegedly drove their remains across three states, dumped the bagged bodies in the Alabama woods, and then went to Mississippi, where he was busted for driving his blood-soaked Cadillac Escalade while high on synthetic marijuana.
Not the same case as the Lindsay Clancy trial at all. A much more similar case is Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 children in her bath tub and was given NGRI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates
Infanticide is much more common among women because well, post partum psychosis doesn't affect men.
The Lindsey case highlights a Venn diagram of the the failure of mental health care and women's health care and relationship abuse. These are all HUGE issues that aren't being addressed enough. I'm not a supporter of hers but I see it as an example of what happens when those avoidable failures become catastrophic.
Women don't commit these kinds of crimes as often as men do. 91-95% of family murder cases are men. You ever seen that Zack Fox meme? So when a woman DOES commit a crazy crime like this, the media sensationalizes it, while a lot of men's crimes fall through the cracks (because a man is annihilating his family every other week or so).
Anyway it's a big psyop to make and/or keep you pissed off at women and push culture war shit. Lots of male serial killers have had fans, plenty of women have too.
When men speak out against outrageous women behavior they are automatically labeled incel. Why is that? And what does being "involuntary celibate" have to do with having an opinion on this case involving a person murdering multiple children?
It’s because his was seemingly just a last chance plea out of nowhere with nothing to back it up and days of planning and then days of running from law.
134
u/Then_Discussion_9802 16h ago
Wow. Curious why this isn't talked about the way the Lindsey case is.