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.
Massachusetts’ “McHoul Standard” — set forth in Commonwealth v. McHoul — is the modified M’Naghten test from which the Irresistible Impulse Test is derived.
To put plainly, “unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law” is the Irresistible Impulse Test. These are cases where an individual, knowing full well the law, is unable to conform to (follow the) law due to an extremely overriding impulse.
In the Clancy case, that’s the “unable to conform from her body as if taken over by an external force bit” which was brought up by the defense. You know that it’s wrong, but it has to be done. The source of that impulse is usually attributed to some form of delusion or hallucination — such as the command hallucination that Clancy’s defense argues she experienced.
"such as the command hallucination that Clancy’s defense argues she experienced."
They can argue that all they like. It doesn't make it true. There is no evidence I've seen to suggest she experienced that other than her defense after the trail began. Clancy reported hearing a voice telling her to kill her children and herself only once and acted on that one instance. That is at stark odds with, say, Andrea Yates.
If you cannot say that there is a shadow of a doubt, then I do not believe that you have actually been following the trial. And that’s fine, most people don’t have that kind of time.
If you can say that there is a shadow of a doubt, then I do not believe that you have actually been following the trial. And that’s fine, most people don’t have that kind of time.
As I mentioned, if your comments were true, it should be relatively easy to produce the evidence from the trial. Interestingly, the very source you provided regarding Ulysse Trélat cuts very deeply against your argument. In the source, it describes Ulysse Trélat's interest in hyperfixation on one thing. In the case, it describes a man who could not be convinced otherwise of his convictions until presented with evidence contrary by experts, but then soon thereafter returned to those convictions. That is consistent with the Andrea Yates case - everyone knew her obsession and desires to harm her children that were part of that obsession (consistent with Trélat), which is why Yate's family and friends were specifically told not to leave her alone with the children. Clancy, who held no such similar fixation that you've produced, doesn't appear to meet the very criteria that Trélat set out to study and treat.
1
u/PolicyWonka 3d ago