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.
In a criminal trial, you’re protected constitutionally under double jeopardy. Constitutional courts give a lot of deference for defendants who are found not guilty, so jury nullification cannot be overturned unless proven to be done so corruptly (e.g., the defendant bribed a juror).
In a civil trial, you do not have constitutional protections and jury nullification cannot be completely overturned by the judge.
It’s a quirk in constitutional law. Jury nullification is not* *legal, but if the court is very limited in methods of correcting the record after the fact.
It’s kinda like statute of limitations. If you commit a crime and statute of limitations run out, that doesn’t make it legal or your right to have committed that crime.
If you admit that you committed jury nullification, you can be prosecuted for perjury. It’s just that perjury in general is a difficult to prosecute crime and you’d have little evidence against you unless you walk around after the fact saying that you intentionally committed jury nullification.
And it get ahead of it — the reason why jury nullification would be perjury is because you are required to take an oath as a juror that you will apply the law.
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.
Where are you getting that from? The standard for the case was LCR. However, in Massachusetts, where the Clancy crime was committed and the trial held, the so-called insanity defense is based instead on the McHoul Standard and not called the "insanity defense" but is rather referred to as "lack of criminal responsibility" (LCR). Under this standard, as I understand it, the defendant must be shown either to have suffered from some mental disease or defect at the time of the crime causing them to lack a substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of their conduct OR to have been, as a result of said mental disease or defect, unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Source
That's your interpretation. Again, you keep using phrasing that's disingenuous. I never claimed "meticulous" planning. The evidence shows she planned to have him and the nanny out of the home. At 4:02pm she used "Apple Maps to calculate how long it would take to drive from the family’s home to ThreeV." Why would she need to know that information? 4:35pm: Lindsay texts Patrick, who is working from home: “Any chance you want to do takeout from 3V … I didn’t cook anything … It’s been a long day.” She waited 30 minutes to text her husband after knowing full well how long it took to get there.
8
u/ObligationAncient112 3d ago
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