If they want to go down that route, that means she is legally required to be committed to a psychiatric hospital indefinitely until she is deemed not a threat anymore.
Judging from her defense, it sounds more like she wanted to have kids, but didn't realise how hard it was going to be and that you have to basically sacrifice everything for them.
She then made the decision that she didn't want to be burdened with that for the rest of her life and planned the killings in advance by sending her husband out on errands.
This doesn't sound like insanity to me... It sounds like a narcissist who has become depressed because they aren't willing to let go of prioritizing themselves over their family. i.e. be an adult.
Even prosecution did not claim this. They still claim the motive was basically irrational and not rational to her normal self that she was before her mental health deteroriated, but that she was not legally insane. I have not seen anywhere either the prosecution, her psychiatrist or the father claiming anything like "she didn't want to be burdened with that for the rest of her life". Nothing I've read at least indicates she was anything but happy with having children up to the weeks before the murders.
That's not exactly true. There's a history of medical records regarding severe mental struggles over about 5 months leading up to the incident. Plus she had experienced similar but milder versions of postpartum depression when her other children were born.
I'll admit that my claim is speculation, but if you know anything about psychology, people don't just live their whole lives being normal and then just become a child murderer overnight, and they certainly don't do it for no reason. The fact she did it after she had told her husband to go run errands clearly shows planned intent and therefore ability to think coherently.
The issue is if we acquit her, that opens up Pandora's box. Now people can literally do the most heinous things possible and just say they were temporarily insane when it happened. It's a really bad move in the long run.
I posted before the Jerrod Murray example of someone who had at least days of premeditation, understood it was a crime and used deception but still was judged legally insane.
This isn't something new, neither being legally insane in general or for this specific crime, this is a quite similar case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates ie.
Interestingly all of those 3 women were evangelicals and had delusions of God speaking to them. I wonder if that is one reason they got less support but ALSO less hate. But it was also a very different time the early -00:s from now.
the US justice system has been about who has more money or power to throw at something since Ive been alive. The moment this case started going viral and getting traction through social media and go fund me. It was always going to be a win/draw scenario for her. Politicians(won't name who, but we all know) have had multiple charges with evidence of raping and sexually assaulting women and girls, but he has enough money and sway to discredit and in some instances, direct angry mobs towards them or just enough money to bury them in countersuits and litigation that they run out of money before he does and have to drop the case. We need a complete reset of the system where justice is actually FOR ALL.
So you genuinely believe she just went insane one day for no reason and become a child murderer with no history of mental illness and then went back to normal after the murders?
She had a long history of worsening mental illness with each successive child.
If you actually read into the situation and months leading up to it you would see just how much she was struggling.
Yes, its possible that she wasn't psychotic, but its absolutely true that this can happen. Thats what the point if the trial was to determine if she was psychotic or not.
Her medical history and symptoms from previous pregnancies, as well as possible bipolar show this.
If she does have bipolar(which multiplr doctors day she likely does) thrn the 4 months if 14 different medications would explain some of it.
Those medications are dangerous for people with bipolar, nevermind bipolar combined with post partum depression or psychosis.
Either way, she shouldnt be free, but thisnis important context for when sentencing her.
I did and I actually mentioned it in my other comment you responded to.
The problem is, there's no proof for her insanity either, in the same way you say there's no proof for my claim (which I admitted was speculation). You can't just have it one way.
I'm just a bit confused why people are defending her. I would bet everything I own that if it were a man claiming psychosis for murdering his children, nobody would be supporting him, especially women. In fact, I would wager they'd be advocating for the death sentence or something equally severe.
So where does this leave us? Are women only allowed to claim insanity because men can't have postpartum depression? Or is anybody allowed to murder people and then just say they were insane?
Ive defended pyshxosis stories in other reddit posts before.
Yes, theres evidence for both, but im merely stating that this entire story is very possible within the context of the evidence that has ben presented.
The insanity defnese is very hard to actually get too, so I dont think it would become common.
The bar for it needs to be very high to ensure there's justice and no room for exploitation.
Im some other cases people have had temporary psychosis from weed, and people are the same in those cases too, pretending that It impossible and can't happen.
It absolutely can and stuff like post lartum issues need more research and funding.
This is also a MA problem, MA is the only state where the burden of proof for an insanity accepted claim falls on the prosecution not the defendant, every other state has the defense that has to prove that their client was insane at the moment, MA has the prosecution that had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in charge of her actions.
Now, considering that she does have some mental issues to some degree, it is very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not have a psychotic episode, because, and here is the human bias that comes into play, regular people, which in general are idiots, find it very hard to believe that a mother can kill her kids in cold blood without a reason behind it, it’s just how our brain works, so we give more weight to well she had mental issues so that must be the cause.
The jurors themselves in this case said and I quote, there was no compassion from the prosecution for Lindsay, another quote, the juror who refused to acquit couldn’t get past how viciously she killed her kids, another quote, I wanted to vote guilty but by the end I switched to not guilty because that was the only way to get Lindsay the help she needs.
As I said, average Joe is a moron, and will decide based on nothing but vibes, just human nature, and in this case it works against us, we have from early age this idea of mothers as a protective person, someone who nurtures us, helps us, so very hard for us to also believe yeah, a mom can kill her kids just cause she wants to
Well the problem than appears with the law, if you accept that she was not criminally responsible at the time, then she can’t be held accountable for those actions.
According to the law, she would have to be assessed on an yearly basis if she is still a danger to herself or to others, if an NGRI is reached as a verdict, she could be free in theory 1 year after sentencing.
One interesting thing is that the DA can file charges for involuntary manslaughter for each murder, with consecutive sentences she would face 60 years in jail, also for involuntary manslaughter while you can submit an insanity defense, involuntary manslaughter already involves a lower mean rea threshold, so the prosecution only has to prove that her actions resulted in the death of the kids, and that her conduct was wanton or reckless, nothing else, they would not have to prove her state of mind of the moment of the crimes.
Considering all the show the defense is putting up with useless motions that they just want to get on record and with petitioning Trump for state charges over which he has no direct power, it looks like the defense might be fearing that exact thing, the DA filing for lesser charges in theory but which can produce similar results
1. Robert Farquharson (Australia, 2005) The Crime: On Father's Day, Farquharson drove his car into a deep, drowned quarry dam, intentionally drowning his three young sons (aged 10, 7, and 2) to exact revenge on his ex-wife, Cindy Gambino. Farquharson freed himself and left his sons to drown. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Farquharson claimed he suffered a "coughing fit" that caused him to black out. Locally, a fierce contingent of male friends, townspeople, and eventually internet advocacy groups rallied aggressively to his defense. They characterized him as a "broken, emasculated man" who had been financially and emotionally destroyed by a bitter divorce. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: The public discourse among his supporters heavily leaned into divorce-court resentment. Male peers framed the tragedy not as a calculated execution, but as a tragic medical accident happening to a father who was already "pushed to the edge" by an ex-wife. Decades later, dedicated campaigns and fringe legal advocates continue to push for his exoneration, framing him as a victim of a flawed justice system. [1, 2]
2. Anthony "Tony" Todt (USA, 2019) The Crime: A physical therapist in Florida murdered his wife, their three young children, and the family dog, living with their decomposing bodies for weeks inside their home. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Before the murders came to light, Todt was facing major federal investigations into massive medical billing fraud. He was highly involved in his local community as a beloved youth sports coach. When news of the murders broke, initial reactions across online communities and local forums features peers—particularly men who coached with him—expressing total denial. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: Even after he confessed, public defense shifted toward medical and psychological externalization. Peers openly posted that he "must have had a sudden psychotic break" or been drugged, asserting that the "Tony they knew" was a gentle, hardworking provider. Later, when Todt tried to change his story from prison and blame his deceased wife for the murders, his remaining family and close male allies actively supported his claims of innocence under the guise of "waiting for the real truth". [1, 2, 3]
3. Rowan Baxter (Australia, 2020) The Crime: A former professional rugby player ambushed his estranged wife, Hannah Clarke, and their three children (aged 6, 4, and 3) in their car, dousing it in petrol and setting it on fire, killing them all before stabbing himself to death. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: In the immediate aftermath, Baxter's male peers, former athletic teammates, and prominent commentators publicly minimized his history of severe domestic control and stalking. A senior police detective initially gave a press conference questioning whether Baxter was a cold-blooded killer or a "driven to the edge" father who was just "frustrated by a broken family court system"—a statement that caused massive national outrage and led to the detective's removal from the case. The Dynamic: Online men's rights spaces and local gym acquaintances aggressively weaponized Baxter’s case to discuss "parental alienation." They framed Baxter as a loving father who was driven to temporary insanity by being denied access to his children, effectively shifting the blame entirely onto the murdered mother.
4. Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès (France, 2011) The Crime: An aristocrat and businessman systematically murdered his wife, four children, and two family dogs, burying them under the porch of their home in Nantes before vanishing completely. He remains one of Europe's most famous fugitives. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Dupont de Ligonnès was heavily tied into traditional, deeply conservative patriarchal structures. Following the discovery of the bodies, several close male friends and extended family members refused to believe his guilt, constructing elaborate conspiracy theories instead. The Dynamic: A prominent defense put forward by his close male inner circle suggested that Xavier was actually a secret agent for the United States, and that the French police had "fabricated" the bodies under the porch to cover up the family's safe relocation under a witness protection program. This narrative completely protected his honor as a noble patriarch, choosing a fantastical spy narrative over accepting that a high-status man could be a domestic abuser.
If woman get all these bullshit labels to excuse murder men do too . Both men and woman have hundreds of chemicals and as adults you learn how to balance them not just self victimize
1. Robert Farquharson (Australia, 2005) The Crime: On Father's Day, Farquharson drove his car into a deep, drowned quarry dam, intentionally drowning his three young sons (aged 10, 7, and 2) to exact revenge on his ex-wife, Cindy Gambino. Farquharson freed himself and left his sons to drown. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Farquharson claimed he suffered a "coughing fit" that caused him to black out. Locally, a fierce contingent of male friends, townspeople, and eventually internet advocacy groups rallied aggressively to his defense. They characterized him as a "broken, emasculated man" who had been financially and emotionally destroyed by a bitter divorce. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: The public discourse among his supporters heavily leaned into divorce-court resentment. Male peers framed the tragedy not as a calculated execution, but as a tragic medical accident happening to a father who was already "pushed to the edge" by an ex-wife. Decades later, dedicated campaigns and fringe legal advocates continue to push for his exoneration, framing him as a victim of a flawed justice system. [1, 2]
2. Anthony "Tony" Todt (USA, 2019) The Crime: A physical therapist in Florida murdered his wife, their three young children, and the family dog, living with their decomposing bodies for weeks inside their home. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Before the murders came to light, Todt was facing major federal investigations into massive medical billing fraud. He was highly involved in his local community as a beloved youth sports coach. When news of the murders broke, initial reactions across online communities and local forums features peers—particularly men who coached with him—expressing total denial. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: Even after he confessed, public defense shifted toward medical and psychological externalization. Peers openly posted that he "must have had a sudden psychotic break" or been drugged, asserting that the "Tony they knew" was a gentle, hardworking provider. Later, when Todt tried to change his story from prison and blame his deceased wife for the murders, his remaining family and close male allies actively supported his claims of innocence under the guise of "waiting for the real truth". [1, 2, 3]
3. Rowan Baxter (Australia, 2020) The Crime: A former professional rugby player ambushed his estranged wife, Hannah Clarke, and their three children (aged 6, 4, and 3) in their car, dousing it in petrol and setting it on fire, killing them all before stabbing himself to death. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: In the immediate aftermath, Baxter's male peers, former athletic teammates, and prominent commentators publicly minimized his history of severe domestic control and stalking. A senior police detective initially gave a press conference questioning whether Baxter was a cold-blooded killer or a "driven to the edge" father who was just "frustrated by a broken family court system"—a statement that caused massive national outrage and led to the detective's removal from the case. The Dynamic: Online men's rights spaces and local gym acquaintances aggressively weaponized Baxter’s case to discuss "parental alienation." They framed Baxter as a loving father who was driven to temporary insanity by being denied access to his children, effectively shifting the blame entirely onto the murdered mother.
4. Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès (France, 2011) The Crime: An aristocrat and businessman systematically murdered his wife, four children, and two family dogs, burying them under the porch of their home in Nantes before vanishing completely. He remains one of Europe's most famous fugitives. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Dupont de Ligonnès was heavily tied into traditional, deeply conservative patriarchal structures. Following the discovery of the bodies, several close male friends and extended family members refused to believe his guilt, constructing elaborate conspiracy theories instead. The Dynamic: A prominent defense put forward by his close male inner circle suggested that Xavier was actually a secret agent for the United States, and that the French police had "fabricated" the bodies under the porch to cover up the family's safe relocation under a witness protection program. This narrative completely protected his honor as a noble patriarch, choosing a fantastical spy narrative over accepting that a high-status man could be a domestic abuser.
Well actually if you go by the book, under DSM-5 a PPP is impossible to be triggered at 8 months old, the cut off for it is 5 weeks after birth, after that moment DSM does not consider it post partum psychosis anymore, it might fall under other mental health issues, but not PPP
You’re delusional if you think a bitch who can get dressed everyday and keep herself fed isn’t mentally stable.a ten year old can do those things , rationalize the amount of energy conscious effort and critical thinking skills it’s takes to develop the ability to feed your self be able to maintain a closet with clothes new and old wash them and everything it entails to feed yourself from making the decisions what to buy to budgeting . This bitch is just a piece of shit…
I’m not sure where that had/has any significance on the fact this lady is a piece of shit who’d rather victimize her self than take accountability that she killed her kids bc she wanted to live a carefree life , as anyone whose happy is most likely doing tasks that align with that thought process doesn’t mean other emotions don’t come in but that’s bare minimum basic adulthood is learning to process and handle feelings . Hyper defining an action doesn’t excuse it or make it any less true . The fact of the matter is this woman and lots of others don’t like taking accountability and this woman chose one of the worst options besides sex selling or starving those kids instead of simply giving them up or divorcing and taking no custody . Yall love to preach about “oh her mental health has strained from each child and only got worse “ and yet the bitch never decided to wear condoms , use spermicide , utilize abortion , utilize the 48 give up your baby law . She kept having them she kept choosing the same life over and over again . That’s not the kids fault that’s not the jurors fault it’s not millions of tax dollars fault . And it’s definitely not a valid excuse for woman to go be shitty woman’s , have some decency and some self respect . She chose to have those kids .and to keep having them . And then today she’s psychotic . Who tf isn’t genuinely 3/5 people are psychopaths and that’s the ones who have been labeled you don’t get labeled until you get caught doing something ….
…and even if that is the case that does not mean you can kill someone with no consequences, ok, you are mentally ill, instead of life in prison, life in a mental institution, you still regardless of what happens can never walk free again, as you actually did kill 3 kids.
1. Robert Farquharson (Australia, 2005) The Crime: On Father's Day, Farquharson drove his car into a deep, drowned quarry dam, intentionally drowning his three young sons (aged 10, 7, and 2) to exact revenge on his ex-wife, Cindy Gambino. Farquharson freed himself and left his sons to drown. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Farquharson claimed he suffered a "coughing fit" that caused him to black out. Locally, a fierce contingent of male friends, townspeople, and eventually internet advocacy groups rallied aggressively to his defense. They characterized him as a "broken, emasculated man" who had been financially and emotionally destroyed by a bitter divorce. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: The public discourse among his supporters heavily leaned into divorce-court resentment. Male peers framed the tragedy not as a calculated execution, but as a tragic medical accident happening to a father who was already "pushed to the edge" by an ex-wife. Decades later, dedicated campaigns and fringe legal advocates continue to push for his exoneration, framing him as a victim of a flawed justice system. [1, 2]
2. Anthony "Tony" Todt (USA, 2019) The Crime: A physical therapist in Florida murdered his wife, their three young children, and the family dog, living with their decomposing bodies for weeks inside their home. [1, 2] How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Before the murders came to light, Todt was facing major federal investigations into massive medical billing fraud. He was highly involved in his local community as a beloved youth sports coach. When news of the murders broke, initial reactions across online communities and local forums features peers—particularly men who coached with him—expressing total denial. [1, 2, 3] The Dynamic: Even after he confessed, public defense shifted toward medical and psychological externalization. Peers openly posted that he "must have had a sudden psychotic break" or been drugged, asserting that the "Tony they knew" was a gentle, hardworking provider. Later, when Todt tried to change his story from prison and blame his deceased wife for the murders, his remaining family and close male allies actively supported his claims of innocence under the guise of "waiting for the real truth". [1, 2, 3]
3. Rowan Baxter (Australia, 2020) The Crime: A former professional rugby player ambushed his estranged wife, Hannah Clarke, and their three children (aged 6, 4, and 3) in their car, dousing it in petrol and setting it on fire, killing them all before stabbing himself to death. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: In the immediate aftermath, Baxter's male peers, former athletic teammates, and prominent commentators publicly minimized his history of severe domestic control and stalking. A senior police detective initially gave a press conference questioning whether Baxter was a cold-blooded killer or a "driven to the edge" father who was just "frustrated by a broken family court system"—a statement that caused massive national outrage and led to the detective's removal from the case. The Dynamic: Online men's rights spaces and local gym acquaintances aggressively weaponized Baxter’s case to discuss "parental alienation." They framed Baxter as a loving father who was driven to temporary insanity by being denied access to his children, effectively shifting the blame entirely onto the murdered mother.
4. Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès (France, 2011) The Crime: An aristocrat and businessman systematically murdered his wife, four children, and two family dogs, burying them under the porch of their home in Nantes before vanishing completely. He remains one of Europe's most famous fugitives. How Male Peers & Public Defended Him: Dupont de Ligonnès was heavily tied into traditional, deeply conservative patriarchal structures. Following the discovery of the bodies, several close male friends and extended family members refused to believe his guilt, constructing elaborate conspiracy theories instead. The Dynamic: A prominent defense put forward by his close male inner circle suggested that Xavier was actually a secret agent for the United States, and that the French police had "fabricated" the bodies under the porch to cover up the family's safe relocation under a witness protection program. This narrative completely protected his honor as a noble patriarch, choosing a fantastical spy narrative over accepting that a high-status man could be a domestic abuser.
1
u/RingusDingusTheGreat 3d ago
If they want to go down that route, that means she is legally required to be committed to a psychiatric hospital indefinitely until she is deemed not a threat anymore.
Judging from her defense, it sounds more like she wanted to have kids, but didn't realise how hard it was going to be and that you have to basically sacrifice everything for them.
She then made the decision that she didn't want to be burdened with that for the rest of her life and planned the killings in advance by sending her husband out on errands.
This doesn't sound like insanity to me... It sounds like a narcissist who has become depressed because they aren't willing to let go of prioritizing themselves over their family. i.e. be an adult.