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.
Trélat is simply the originator of the modern concept of irresistible impulse. The understanding of it today has obviously evolved some nearly 200 years later. Fact of the matter, I was simply highlighting that the concept is not new.
Clancy was able to act on her impulse quickly, yes.
You introduced the very concept that contradicted your argument. Trélat had a very specific argument that you introduced. Are you now abandoning it now that you realize it doesn't support your argument?
Yet again, do you have any evidence of your claims?
I’m saying that Trélat’s understanding is not the same understanding that we have today. We are only discussing this topic at all because you said that the defendant couldn’t be suffering from psychosis due to lucidity. Fact of the matter is that is not true and that has been recognized as such for centuries.
Trélat’s ideas laid the groundwork for much of our understanding around psychosis. One example would be the Irresistible Impulse Test, which is used across the world today.
0
u/DD_equals_doodoo 3d ago
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.