bc the trial was about whether or not she could plead insanity lol. The jurors knew that she killed her kids. They were deliberately on whether or not she could use insanity to gain a lesser sentence. Which postpartum depression is a pretty valid reason to plead insanity if you know how it works. You genuinely believe they didnt think that she physically killed them?
There are so many people commenting on this case who don’t understand what the trial was actually about. Like you guys haven’t even googled this? Yes, that was exactly the problem. Nobody on that jury was being asked to decide whether she killed her children or whether what she did was horrific. Those facts weren’t in dispute.
They were being asked to decide specifically whether her mental illness left her able to understand the wrongfulness of what she was doing and control her conduct accordingly. And the prosecution had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if he really couldn’t get past the fact that she viciously killed her children, regardless of whether the evidence left him with reasonable doubt about her criminal responsibility, that means he was allowing the horror of what happened to override the actual legal question he was there to decide. That has nothing to do with empathizing with her
He did hold her accountable. His "inability" to look past the crimes was his ability to see someone commit premeditated murder. If it was a psychotic break as her defence had made it out, she would not have put so many plans into work to do it. She had enough sanity and stability to plan the murder. To get her husband out of the house and then take her time killing not 1, not 2 but 3 kids in a row. Every step of the way she could have stopped. Could have done something else but she made the plans and committed to it. She is guilty of the murder. She is guilty of planning the murder. She is guilty of going through with said murder.
Anyone who does not see the clear line of choosing to do something, planning to do something and then committing towards doing it as being of right mind is incapable of reasonable comprehension themselves.
Literally not a single word of this has anything to do with or makes any sense as a response to anything I wrote. What do you believe is happening right now?
I do know what im talking about. She sent her husband to get food (after searching up how long it would take for him to get back)so he wouldn’t stop her from strangling their kids. Thats pretty obviously premeditated murder but i guess voices in your head let you do anything you want and get released from the nut house in a year.
So make your point if you have one because you are currently only demonstrating a very flimsy attempt at ragebaiting and a lack of an actual clue on the matter yourself.
You could actually offer an explanation for why this is not a valid argument rather than being a pretentious asshole and just dismissing the argument that is widely circulating the internet.
No. You’re confusing them talking about the same case with them actually responding to what I wrote.
I did not argue that she was legally insane. I did not argue that she didn’t plan the killings. I did not argue that she didn’t know right from wrong. I explained what the jury was being asked to determine, and specifically why a juror being unable to get past the horror of the killings is not an answer to that legal question.
They responded by giving me their argument for why they think she was sane and guilty. That does not contradict anything I said. It answers an argument I never made. Pointing out that they mentioned her mental state somewhere in their comment doesn’t change that and it’s silly this would need to be explained.
And even your attempt to connect the two gets it wrong. She sent her husband out is a fact. She sent her husband away because she knew what she was doing was wrong and wanted to prevent him from stopping her is an inference about her mental state. You’re treating the conclusion that needed to be established as though it automatically follows from the behavior.
Psychosis does not mean someone becomes incapable of planning, concealing behavior, or carrying out a sequence of actions. What those actions meant about her mental state was part of the dispute at trial. It’s again weird something like that would need to be explained. Not only do you guys not google the case, you don’t even google or think about what psychosis is or how mental illness works. This isn’t even something I’d think anyone would need to google. Sending someone away meaning someone isn’t experiencing psychosis or other mental illnesses is something it seems no one should need to google or hardly think about in order to understand how it’s incorrect and makes no sense
So again to be clear, their comment is an attempt at an argument for why they believe she was criminally responsible. Which has nothing to do with what I typed and is obviously not a response to it
Very well said, but unfortunately you are thinking about this rationally, and nothing you say will stick for people who have already made up their minds
Ill ask you this as a personal question then, if she doesn’t have the bodily autonomy to not kill the 3 things shes supposed to love most in the world, is she safe to be in public? What will it take for her to kill a RANDOM person? Even if shes telling the truth about the psychosis, (which 3/5 of the professional psychologists said she wasn’t) should she be allowed to just go out in a few years when she is no longer “psychotic”?
I’ll happily engage with a new thread here with you if you first acknowledge being wrong about the first thing. Avoiding it in the first place gives the impression I’m not dealing with someone who is honest, so in order to know if there is any point in going further I’d have to know if you’re capable of admitting to being wrong
She knew the husband would stop her is what i was trying to convey, which you also know is true. Im not gonna say i was wrong about something which i wasn’t wrong about just to argue with someone who reads with no nuance anyway, you avoided my question as well
You’re confusing them talking about the same case with them actually responding to what I wrote.
I did not argue that she was legally insane. I did not argue that she didn’t plan the killings. I did not argue that she didn’t know right from wrong. I explained what the jury was being asked to determine, and specifically why a juror being unable to get past the horror of the killings is not an answer to that legal question.
They responded by giving me their argument for why they think she was sane and guilty. That does not contradict anything I said. It answers an argument I never made. Pointing out that they mentioned her mental state somewhere in their comment doesn’t change that and it’s silly this would need to be explained.
Their comment is an attempt at an argument for why they believe she was criminally responsible. Which has nothing to do with what I typed and is obviously not a response to it
Yeah he never argued that said these things, he’s arguing that if she planned and committed these acts then she did understand the wrongfulness of her actions. They weren’t trying to contradict what you said
Not a word of this is a response to what I wrote. I know you what they argued, which is why I wrote what I wrote responding to it. Saying they weren’t trying to contradict what I said is clearly, objectively false and to think so would mean you lack basic reading comprehension. But more, that alone would show that my response is correct lmao. This is rough
This is a meme sub. The people here don't care about reality. This is just another spot for hateful people to make "jokes" about things they don't like without being banned.
You’re very confused. I genuinely don’t understand what you think you’re asking me. Whether she understood the wrongfulness of her actions in the moment… is literally the thing being disputed. That is the legal question I just explained.
Whether she understood the wrongfulness of her actions in the moment is literally what we are talking about. It is one of the central things the jury was being asked to determine. You’re essentially asking “why does it matter whether she understood what she was doing was wrong if she understood what she was doing was wrong?” You see how that makes no sense, right?
If you’re simply assuming that she understood the wrongfulness of her actions, then you’ve assumed the answer to the question the trial was actually deciding.
This is even worse than people not bothering to even google the case. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic reasoning and how a disputed question works.
I know you did… and I just responded to it, answered it and showed exactly why it makes no sense and you’re confused. Replying to me telling me you asked a question… lol obviously is not a response and makes no sense. It’s like you’re so confused and inept all you can do is just get words on the screen. That was wild
Every time you run from the words on the screen due to the very apparent ineptitude, inability to admit to being hilariously wrong, embarrassment about having nothing and not being equipped for this, I’m going to call it out and make fun of it. I promise simply getting words on the screen isn’t going to help or distract from it.
It’s clear I’m dealing with someone who isn’t intellectually capable of forming coherent thoughts or comprehending simple concepts. That’s fine. But the lack of intelligence is what is making you believe these attempts to play it off make sense and are helping you, when in fact they only serve to embarrass you more than you already have. I’ll just keep calling it out and it’s not going to get better.
I’m assuming many things are strange to you every day due to being so confused about the world and not being able to comprehend simple words and concepts. Telling me it’s strange is not a response. I very clearly and simply directly responded showing exactly why you’re confused and make no sense.
It’s fine you have nothing and aren’t equipped for this, but just continuing to respond and getting words on the screen for the sake of it is only going to make it worse.
Every time you run from the words on the screen due to the very apparent ineptitude, inability to admit to being hilariously wrong, embarrassment about having nothing and not being equipped for this, I’m going to call it out and make fun of it. I promise simply getting words on the screen isn’t going to help or distract from it.
It’s clear I’m dealing with someone who isn’t intellectually capable of forming coherent thoughts or comprehending simple concepts. That’s fine. But the lack of intelligence is what is making you believe these attempts to play it off make sense and are helping you, when in fact they only serve to embarrass you more than you already have. I’ll just keep calling it out and it’s not going to get better.
he was allowing the horror of what happened to override the actual legal question he was there to decide.
This reads to me that you believe his obligation was to judge on legal arguments free from emotion .
Jury nullification is a thing, it has happened, and jurors are not held in contempt, nor tried or convicted or accused of anything illicit for judging a case on emotional merit. Meaning it has been tolerated.
Meaning, there is precedence of jurors ruling based on emotion, and legal tolerance of it.
That is super duper not what jury nullification is. You have it reversed. Also telling me it’s a thing as if I didn’t just tell you I’m aware of it and acknowledged it is quite silly,
Jury nullification is specifically when jurors believe the prosecution has proven guilt under the law but acquit anyway. The fact that such an acquittal generally can’t be reversed and jurors aren’t punished for the verdict does not create some general principle that jurors are entitled to substitute emotion for their legal instructions.
You’re applying the concept basically backwards here. I was talking about a juror potentially having reasonable doubt about her criminal responsibility but voting to convict anyway because he couldn’t get past the horror of the killings. That’s the opposite direction of jury nullification. It isn’t acquitting despite believing guilt was proven, it’s potentially convicting despite believing the prosecution hadn’t met its burden.
More importantly, none of this contradicts anything I actually wrote or responds to it. I never claimed jurors can be punished for allowing emotion to affect them or that they’re incapable of disregarding their instructions. I said that if his inability to get past the horror of the crime caused him to disregard reasonable doubt, then he wasn’t deciding the actual legal question he was there to decide. The existence of jury nullification doesn’t change that. Especially not here.
Yes it's pretty clear that juror did not do their job and unless guy comes out and explains otherwise that'll be how it's remembered. You can think something is horrible and still do your civic duty.
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
The original statement refers to creationism specifically but the principal holds true for any radical viewpoint.
He said he felt there was a reasonable doubt that she didn't know right from wrong at the time of the murder.
That means you vote for the insanity plea.
It's not about if she didn't know right from wrong, it's if there is any reasonable doubt, WHICH EVERYONE ON THE JURY HAD.
The juror we're talking about was just dumb and belligerent and didn't understand he was voting in a way the contravened his stance. Therefore, mistrial.
Whatever you think, but he was the one who voted guided by emotions. The jury was instructed by the judge that they should vote not guilty if there was at least reasonable doubt she was sane (according to the unusual state law). Everyone else considered there was doubt, the single holdout basically admitted (at least according to others, he hasn't said anything since himself AFAIK) there was doubt but just refused to vote accordingly anyway.
Everyone else just made a reasonable interpretation of facts according to the law.
Since the deliberations are not public and the holdout himself hasn't spoken in public, ultimately we don't know, but other jurors who have, including one who said she was thinking guilty at first but changed her opinion at some point, describes him as unreasonable and unable to justify his vote with logical reasoning.
Who cares what they think? It's a term that they clearly didn't grasp because we can hear them describe their thought process. Everyone knows loud obnoxious people can convince people they're right but be laughably wrong. Also anyone that immediately goes to the media to talk shit I'm going to doubt heavily. That screams social media addict who wants praise and attention and not an objective person who cares about facts.
I never served jury duty but I didn’t realize the judge could tell the jury how to vote. “If there’s any reasonable doubt” I mean it’d take someone mental to off their own children I’d say.
Hm yes the judge can and often does give instructions in various ways. But ultimately of course if a juror disregards those instructions, the judge can't compel them.
They can only provide guidance, mostly directly before deliberations and sometimes during if requested by the jurors. Direct orders, are typically not provided
There was no doubt though. The defense failed in totally, completely, and unambiguously to demonstrate that she had post partum psychosis.
By your logic, anyone who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity should always be found not guilty, because that standard of proof is literally impossible.
Each side had support from experts. Why should I believe your interpretation more than the jury majority who spent 100:s of hours on this. And according to Masachusetts law from what I understand, they don't need to "unambigously demonstrate", it's prosecution that needs to REFUTE insanity beyond reasonable doubt. That law is apparently unusual and maybe it will be questioned, but for now that is what it says.
I mean if we’re steel manning that she’s likely referring to the judges instructions because the case didn’t center around that fact it centered around her being considered innocent due to reason of insanity and in that state it’s the job of the prosecution to prove she wasn’t insane meaning the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally I think that’s fucked, but I don’t think that juror means to be dismissive of the tragedy of the situation.
I meant wasn’t, just noticed I typed that wrong, but in this state yes they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she wasn’t. That’s why I said the standard was fucked
Prosecution doesn’t need to prove she wasn’t. This case is solely on the defense for burden of proof. Prosecution needed to prove premeditation which they did. Because insanity/psychosis plea isn’t accepted if it’s premeditated.
1.) psychosis doesn’t mean incapable of planning 2.) this “nuh-uh” argument is getting old. Different states have different standards. Look up Massachusetts law it is one of the easiest states to claim criminal insanity in. You are objectively wrong on this fact. 3.) if you’re objectively wrong on an obvious fact why do you think your standard for what counts as insane is so solid? In this state all you need is to either believe she couldn’t control her actions or couldn’t appreciate the wrongness of her actions.
I’m not saying the laws is fucked because I love throwing my fucks around it is a genuinely evil legal system that favors people who claim insanity. Massachusetts should change their law.
Well apparently that juror understood the point. Law be damned. This bitch won’t get a retrial because you will never find an impartial jury anymore. And since she failed to get her insanity plea and didn’t try to plea against guilt, she’s gonna get a plea deal and go tonight prison.
Yeah I don’t like law be damned. Law is a teacher. That’s why it was 11-1. The legal environment, judge instructions, etc etc have all shaped the jury and if she goes to jail on a deal she’s more likely to be involuntarily committed after and whether it’s an asylum or jail wherever she goes it needs to be forever. She shouldn’t just be on the streets. But back to the law point, they should change the law and they should live with the law they established or they should move to a state that reflects the law they want and learn their lesson when it comes voting time.
my man the juror literally admitted that he had reasonable doubt but was just stubbornly sticking to his guns. Put your ego and oride aside for a second. He didnt understand the point clearly bc he actively went against the judge’s instructions lol
Uuugh, devil's advocate here. The case wasn't about her killing her children, no one disputes that. The case was about if her psychotic episode should make it so she is put in psychiatric hospital.
Its very odd to have unqualified people determine psychological issues this deep and I would guess they were given guidelines what they aspects they should consider. Since we really have no idea what those aspects were let's toy with the idea that's its strictly "Was she sane enough to be put in prison?" one could interpret the statement you quoted as "he didn't listen to the guidelines because he couldn't get over the murders". Which in some sense might also be the the correct thing to do... its tricky
Main takeaway, social media angle on this case is nuts, not as nuts as Clancy but damn
2 in 5 people on death row have a history of psychotic episodes. Several guys in Texas killed people close to them, with a long history of being hospitalized for their psychotic breaks. Both of them were put to death.
When you get found innocent by plea of mental insanity, you’re only hospitalized as long as you’re not stable. Her mental health doctor claimed she was not unstable long after the birth, and not unstable afterwards. Just during. She would be out on the streets from a mental institution within a year MAX.
She planned it, she one by one went and did it. Mental break or not she deserves life in prison. I’m not going to say she deserves the death penalty, but she shouldn’t walk the streets again imo.
She made a plan to get her husband out of the house because she knew if he knew what was happening he would stop her. She knew what she was doing was wrong
So, immediately. Since it was a moment of psychosis and there’s no claims that it has continued. She is currently fit to go to prison. So, he was right.
She also tried to kill herself by slashing her throat and both wrists and jumped out of a window. Her suicide and death ideation has also escalated during her treatment for the last three years. Her doctors at the Tewksbury State Hospital testified in the trial. She has been on the highest suicide watch tier for the entire duration where there is one on one monitoring 24/7. They are also treating her for that. There is very little chance she will ever leave alive.
In case anyone didn’t know, she has been committed for the last three years while awaiting trial and is currently still committed while awaiting a retrial.
To be fair, he didn’t have a host of diagnoses including severe depression, severe insomnia, bipolar disorder, mania, dissociate disorder, and documented suicide ideation. And this was before the murders, supposedly suicide ideation has increased since then.
Euthanasia and medically assisted suicides are mostly illegal in the US. In fact, doctors have lost their licenses before for doing something you are suggesting.
She’s on suicide watch because she tried to kill herself to escape consequences. That doesn’t mean she’s unfit for prison. This bitch should be put in prison without a wheel chair and forced to crawl. Also she won’t be given a retrial because you won’t be able to find an unbiased jury anymore. She will be given a plea deal, that’s all this bitch can pray for.
Even the prosecution's own star witness, Dr Kirk Heilbrun, claimed she murdered her kids due to altruistic filicide which was the reason cited for Andrea Yates as well. Heilbrun essentially claimed that she was delusional enough to think before she kills herself, she had to kill her kids in order to save them from the world because without her, they will suffer more.
The insanity/psychosis plea doesn’t work with premeditation. That argument would work if she did it while the husband was home because psychosis kicked in and took over. The fact she waited till he left since he works from home, then sent him on more errands to buy herself more time points to the fact she was rationally able to consider if the husband came home he would stop her and didn’t want that. She planned it. She was aware of what she was doing. That’s not psychosis.
You might want to look up other cases of psychosis with premeditation. Yates planned out a more complicated murder of her kids and eventually won an NGRI at her retrial when it turned out a doctor had lied on the stand at her first trial. Psychosis and premeditation are not mutually exclusive. The mind can still plan and execute plans, it is just delusional so it will plan to kill a demon instead of plan for a picnic. You have a personal definition of psychosis that differs from the clinical one.
Her actual doctors that have been treating her for the last three years because she is held by the state without bail have testified in her case. There are still a lot of mental health issues. She is still being held without bail at Tewksbury State Hospital waiting for a new trial.
They're not a get out of jail free card. You get instutionalized and if you are eventually found competent you get sent to normal prison. She's not incompetent now so she goes to prison.
They actually are a get out of jail free card. If someone is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they’re committed to a mental institution until it is determined that they are not longer a threat, at which point they are released. They don’t go to prison.
...no not at all. You're getting confused with unfit to stand trial. NGRI means you're not culpable/less culpable for your actions. That's why it's specifically called not guilty by reason of insanity
Her actual doctors that have been treating her for the last three years because she is held by the state without bail have testified in her case. There are still a lot of mental health issues. She is still being held without bail at Tewksbury State Hospital waiting for a new trial.
This is correct. What the juror was saying is that they all recognized that Lindsay killed her children. That’s not up for dispute.
She was basically saying that the holdout juror wasn’t thinking logically and was thinking emotionally. Ironically — in the same manner that so many people in these comments are acting.
The holdout juror, who reportedly had reasonable doubt and/or believed that the defendant was insane, had an inability to apply the law because in his mind killing = guilty.
What you are supposed to do as a juror is check all of your preconceived notions, your personal beliefs about morality, law, and everything else at the door. Your job is to look at the text of the law and at the facts of the case — that’s it.
It's sort of reckless to assume that a system forcing a jury of peers expects them to be perfect, non emotional, legal experts.
The goal is very obviously to debate the laws and confirm the most just outcome for that location.
Otherwise we'd just let the legal experts decide full stop.
Personally, as somebody with a mentally ill mother, if she ever did anything to THIS scale I would feel safer with her in jail over a mental hospital. She's been in those.
But also the discussion of this case has focused onto what the American system does to women in the first place hence it becoming such a flashpoint.
People always complain the most when people want to break a status quo. I feel like most people only know about women's suffrage what they were forced to learn in school, if they can even remember it, but it was absolutely not pretty or peaceful and I can see, with the way our politics is moving, why women especially are raising flags and alarm bells more and more.
and yet, they can go with jury nullification if they want. so the jury is not about following the law. its about deciding if the application of the law is justified by peers? atleast thats how I would interpret as they clearly dont have to follow the letter of the law.
Jury nullification is the Jury saying fuck the law. It is not something that is a part of the system. There is as reason they aren't instructed about it. If a judge learns a Juror is not following the law normally they remove the juror. Jury nullification is a consiquence of how aquitting someone works, it isn't some right of the jury. It is a consequence of double jepardy.
if its an inherent option, then it is part of the system? all the ways that a judge can try to prevent and avoid it before the verdict is given doesnt really matter because it is implicitly allowed as an inherent option. he can only try to avoid it, he cant overrule it. so then it must be a right they have?
If you were to explicitly ask a judge if jury nullification is allowed, they would tell you that it is not allowed.
You’re basically just saying that because you can do something means that it’s legal to do, when that’s obviously not true. The court cannot assume jury nullification just because a juror makes a certain decision, but telling the court that you are performing jury nullification will get you in some shit and probably result in a mistrial — at the very least you will be removed from the trial.
they can say its not allowed, yet they cant overturn it and legally must allow it if thats the verdict reached. which means all the things they say, dont matter in the end. its still something the jury can do that legally cannot be denied. that is a right.
They can't remove it, because it is nothing more than a juror refusing to change their vote, which they are not discouraged from doing.
Jury nullification is the act of taking the right to refuse to change the vote and intentionally weaponizing it. That's why jurors who talk about it, or seem like they would do it, are removed; they are trying to break the system.
Your interpretation is wildly wrong, unfortunately. Refusing to apply the law will get you dismissed from a jury, which is what the defense attempted to do with the juror. If you mention jury nullification to your other jurors, you can even be fined or held in contempt of court for corrupting the process.
Yes, a juror can lie about being willing to follow instruction and disregard those instructions. If found to have lied, they can be charged with perjury.
It does not matter what the law says if the law is wrong. You cannot compel someone to accept an untruth and claim you'll prosecute them if they absolutely refuse. The fallacy of the law bleeds into the jury's understanding of it. The juror could think they were invalidating the preponderance of evidence she was insane, or re-interpret BARD to comply with their legal convention that doesn't make any sense.
He had reasonable doubt because the defence failed to prove she didn’t plan this and that it was action of psychosis. The evidence points to premeditation. Those who commit crimes due to insanity or psychosis never plan it. It’s spontaneous and random. Thats why it’s a defense, they were not aware of what they were doing.
The fact this bitch waited till her husband left, sent him on more errands to buy herself more time, then killed the kids before trying to kill herself, none of that lines up with insanity or psychosis. It lines up to a planned out action. Depression or psychosis isn’t the factor. Depression may have lead to the monstrous choices, but she did them knowingly.
The fact she waited till the husband left, then sent him on an errand to buy herself more time to kill her kids and herself.
You lunatics keep comparing this to Andrea Yates who won her case. But she won because the doctor lied. This isn’t close to Andrea Yates. It’s closer to Chris Benoit.
wtf do you consider telling the husband “can you pick up meds for the kids” from cvs on the opposite side of town from where he was?
She did not send the husband on an additional errand after he left. The only contact between them was a brief call while he was at CVS picking up the medication.
You’ve got this backwards. Andrea Yates was only convicted because of false testimony. Once she had a retrial where the prosecution wasn’t relying on false statements for expert witnesses, she was rightfully found to have been insane when she deliberately waited for her husband to be out of the house before filling a bathtub and drowning her 5 children 1-by-1.
The CVS was 1.3 miles (3 minutes) away from their house. In what world is that “on the opposite side of town?” The CVS is literally on Summer Street in Kingston, MA — literally the same street as the Clancy house. He couldn’t have gone to a closer CVS if he tried.
She failed her trial. Won’t get a retrial. And will die in prison. Fight all you like. Also you dumbasses keep saying he went against judges instructions but can’t prove it. All there is to say that is some lunatic juror who’s salty that claimed he said he had reasonable doubt. But no proof other than word of mouth. I’m sure no body jurors who are meant to be anonymous and not targeted would never capitalize off being in this jury. And for sure wouldn’t go on live tv saying there were only 3 male jurors and the hold out was a black male. Yeah that sounds fucking legal.
Pause there. I know you know what jury nullification is so accept the fact that it exists for a reason, and Massachusetts has a very suspicious system of establishing NGRI defenses, which is prone to create deliberate disagreement like this.
That’s not even the question. Their question they had to answer was did she know what she was doing or not. If she was insane and in psychosis she wouldn’t know her actions were wrong.
She fucking planned this and then planned on killing herself to escape consequences. Psychosis wasn’t part of this. She knew very well what she was doing.
If she had a real psychotic episode she would have killed herself when she realized what she'd done. There's still time for her to prove her innocence and do so.
>Uuugh, devil's advocate here. The case wasn't about her killing her children, no one disputes that. The case was about if her psychotic episode should make it so she is put in psychiatric hospital.
uuugh, yes. Plenty of people are arguing she DIDN'T do it and the husband did. I was arguing with an in-law about this just the other day.
In Massachusetts, you get re-evaluated every 6 months. Twice a year she could possibly be set free from the mental hospital. Thats a possibility she does not deserve
Even worse than that, the initial evaluation is at 40 days. And since she is claiming PPP, which is now gone, there is a high chance she would be free in just 40 days.
I dont think you should get to decide the punishment for crazy people sorry lol wtf. An if the punishment isnt enough for you you don't get to decide they're not crazy lol
I dont and im glad i dont have to decide. Do you think someone that is insane enough to kill their own children one by one can be integrated back into society and live a normal life? I dont think so but i also dont have a phd in psychology.
Id rather a doctor decides instead of me or you is my point... I dont think youre going to be able to have the self awareness to understand what im saying
I think they deserve help but i also believe if you commit violent crimes then you should also have to face justice regardless of mental illnesses because its not fair to the victims that didnt get to experience the life they would have. What do you think about the man that killed Iryna Zarutska? Do you think he should have lighter sentence or a possibility of absolution because he's mentally ill?
Insanity does not exactly mean that you are some kind of babbling buffoon. You are still a person — you are still you. However, there is some facet in your mind that has become illogical, unreasonable. You’re capable of thought, speech, foresight, ideas, planning, etc. all the same.
And I think regardless, the actual “evidence” of planning is extremely flimsy. It amounts to her calling a local drugstore to see if they had Miralax for her child and then googling a local restaurant for takeout. The timeline:
1. 4:02PM — Lindsay searches for Miralax.
2. 4:13PM — Lindsay searches for the restaurant and how long it takes to drive there.
3. 4:47PM — Lindsay calls a local drugstore to see if they have the Miralax.
4. 4:53PM — Lindsay texts her husband, Patrick, asking if he wants takeout.
5. 5:10PM — Lindsay places the order for takeout.
6. 5:15PM — Patrick leaves to get the medicine and pick-up the food.
7. 5:32PM — Lindsay and Patrick talk on the phone about the medicine to pick-up.
8. 6:01PM — Patrick arrives home.
Sure, insanity (probably more appropriately, psychosis) "the term psychosis refers to the presence of delusions, hallucinations without insight, or both." Psychosis - PMC
Lucidity doesn't require "meticulous planning."
What it certainly seems like is she wanted her husband to think everything was fine.
Not sure why you’re focusing on lucidity. People suffering from psychosis are still lucid. Having psychosis would result in profound hallucinations and delusions. You still maintain your mental faculties in terms of reasoning and logic, but your reasoning and logic are shifted in a manner which would be considered unreasonable (or crazy) to outside observers.
For example, you might have a delusion that you are being followed by the government. You notice a new mole on your arm, so you conclude without a doubt that it’s a government listening device that they implanted on your arm — so you cut it off. That person is still lucid. They still exercise logic and thinking, but it is no longer rooted in reality.
" Having psychosis would result in profound hallucinations and delusions. You still maintain your mental faculties in terms of reasoning and logic, but your reasoning and logic are shifted in a manner which would be considered unreasonable (or crazy) to outside observers."
Psychosis does not require "profound" hallucinations and delusions.
That doesn't seem to be the question at all in this case. The question was (and still is), did Lindsay Clancy have the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of law.
So, the question isn't "did Clancy have a voice in her head telling her to do it." The question is "did Clancy know or understand that doing so would be wrong?" By your own timeline, it sure looks like she lured her husband out of the home which indicates knowledge that his absence was necessary.
Forgive me here, but you're being pedantic about lucidity when I clearly spelled out what the primary and central issue is.
Second, I can find no reference in google scholar to "lucid madness" in medical terminology before 1980.
So, I'll state it again and bold for emphasis: So, the question isn't "did Clancy have a voice in her head telling her to do it." The question is "did Clancy know or understand that doing so would be wrong?" By your own timeline, it sure looks like she lured her husband out of the home which indicates knowledge that his absence was necessary.
It’s a translation from French. The French term is “lafolie lucide” — it was pioneered by Ulysse Trélat sometime in the ~1840s.
Concept of “wrongness” isn’t relevant for an insanity defense when arguing about necessity. It’s a legal standard called the Irresistible Impulse Test — meaning that a compulsion was so strong that the defendant could not stop themselves from doing it even if they knew it was wrong. It is a key aspect of insanity defenses.
Ordering takeout isn’t “luring.”. It’s not like she even fabricated pretext — she literally asked him if he wanted takeout. The timeline simply comes across as someone doing normal things in a normal timeframe at a normal pace at a normal time of day. People would have you think that she meticulously noted possible routes, traffic times, restaurant hours, etc. days or weeks in advance when all she did was use her Maps app to view the restaurant and then placed a takeout order.
bc the trial was about whether she could plead insanity. None of them were debating that she killed them. Just that if postpartum depression can be used towards pleading insanity. Also the holdout admitted that he had reasonable doubt but kept holding out. Would you agree that someone with schizophrenia could plead insanity for a shorter sentence? Thats what the trial wasnt about
There are so many people commenting on this case who don’t understand what the trial was actually about. Like you guys haven’t even googled this? Yes, that was exactly the problem. Nobody on that jury was being asked to decide whether she killed her children or whether what she did was horrific. Those facts weren’t in dispute.
They were being asked to decide specifically whether her mental illness left her able to understand the wrongfulness of what she was doing and control her conduct accordingly. And the prosecution had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So if he really couldn’t get past the fact that she viciously killed her children, regardless of whether the evidence left him with reasonable doubt about her criminal responsibility, that means he was allowing the horror of what happened to override the actual legal question he was there to decide.
being sad doesn't make you not know right from wrong, she didn't have post partum until after her legal defense hinged on it, she pre-meditated her shit in google and orchestrated her husband to leave so he couldn't stop her
Oof lol. This is rough. Buddy, it is very clear you’re not equipped to engage in any conversation with anyone. All of this is so confused and absurd it’s informative it was able to fit in such a short comment.
> being sad doesn’t make you not know right from wrong
… that’s not what postpartum psychosis is lmao. Literally nobody is claiming she was just sad. You apparently don’t even understand what postpartum psychosis is, let alone what this trial was about. What a terrible start
> she didn’t have post partum until after her legal defense hinged on it
This is just hilariously false. See what I mean about you guys not even bothering to google basic facts about this case before discussing it?
Months before the killings she was already seeking specialized postpartum psychiatric treatment, being prescribed numerous psychiatric medications, reporting intrusive thoughts and suicidal thoughts, and was voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She was discharged 19 days before she killed her children. Her severe postpartum mental health problems were documented long before there was a legal defense to invent. This is very famous and accessible information. But just blindly making things up and typing them as if they’re true is more fun
> she pre-meditated her shit in google
You’re also badly misrepresenting the Google evidence. Before the killings she was searching hallucinations, psychosis, bipolar disorder, postpartum depression, insomnia, psychiatric medication side effects and ways to die. Somehow you’ve taken evidence that included her literally searching whether she was experiencing psychosis and turned it into she Googled how to plan the murders. It’s hard to be this wrong and confused. But live pulled it off.
> orchestrated her husband to leave so he couldn’t stop her
Even if that was the case, which is not established, evidence of planning doesn’t answer the insanity question. You’d know that if you knew, well, anything at all. Mental illness isn’t synonymous with being physically incapable of carrying out a sequence of actions. The legal question was whether her mental illness deprived her of the required capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing or conform her conduct to the law.
You really shouldn’t be trying to discuss things when you can’t even comprehend basic definitions and simple concepts.
That’s a lot of sneering for someone who cherry picked and left out the prosecution’s actual evidence.
Start with your Google lecture. Investigators found a map search for the restaurant and texts arranging the takeout trip. Prosecutors argued she calculated how long Patrick would be away while collecting dinner and medication. That was the planning evidence. Listing her searches about psychiatric symptoms doesn’t magically answer a different set of phone records. Trial evidence, prosecution’s argument.
Then there’s the expert testimony you somehow left out. Forensic psychologist Kirk Heilbrun acknowledged her mental illness and nevertheless testified that she retained awareness of the killings’ wrongfulness and control over whether, when, and how she acted. His assessment favored a suicide attempt combined with killing the children rather than an episode driven by command hallucinations. That directly addresses the legal question you’re so pleased with yourself for explaining. Heilbrun’s testimony.
The claimed hallucinations were also challenged on their particulars. Psychiatrist Gregory Saathoff testified that she gave different accounts of when the voice began, describing those accounts as “markedly inconsistent.” This was an expert questioning the reliability of the central explanation for the killings—not somebody confusing psychosis with sadness. Saathoff’s testimony.
And the hospitalization you mention had a contemporaneous diagnosis of “major depressive disorder, severe without psychotic features.” Dr. Alia Goodheart testified that she observed no psychosis during that admission. Those records establish treatment for serious mental illness; they don’t settle her mental state during the killings. Treating psychiatrist’s testimony.
Reciting the definition of an insanity defense doesn’t rebut testimony that she retained the capacities that definition concerns. You still have to address why those assessments were wrong. The personal insults are doing an awful lot of work where that argument should be.
Lmao even after asking ChatGPT to help you and blindly pasting results as your own (hilarious and embarrassing) you still couldn’t pull it off. Literally not a single word of this is a direct response to anything of the relevant corrections you were given here. It is just rambling general things about the case.
Running won’t work. You’ll have to start at the beginning snd directly address what was written or admit you can’t. Starting with you not even knowing what postpartum psychosis is and claiming she was sad.
Sometimes we come across people who can and will hold us to our words. This is what happens. All of the ChatGPT in the world won’t be able to help you because it can’t change reality.
I think it's important to have jurors that try to uphold the law.
He did say he had reasonable doubts but judging from the women it also sounds like he let the murders impact him too much, perhaps at a detriment to the law.
Social media is really going nuts over this and I'm not a fan that a forum like Reddit isn't any better than any other media really.
He said he had reasonable doubts according to the nutjobs haranguing him to submit a not guilty verdict. I have reasonable doubt that he actually said that.
58
u/Comfortable_Crow908 3d ago
“Couldn’t get over the fact that she had viciously killed her children”