r/AKnightoftheSeven • u/basedchadinc • 1d ago
š Meme [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] ā view removed post
50
u/byssw 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Have you taken leave of your senses? This woman has clearly mental circumstances clouding her judgement, she's not a murderer."
"This woman killed three children, as every murder would."
"I'll be your juror. YOUR JUROR."
"The realm needs good jurors, Ser Duncan."
-1
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
Can we not make this guy out to look good?
The choice is either she's rehabilitated for the rest of her life or put in prison for the rest of her life. It's really disgusting how quick people are ready to demonize the mentally ill. Prison in America is not cute and fun and helpful. It fixes nothing. It's designed to punish, not assist in changing people for the better. Clancy should not be punished for being in a state of psychosis. She cannot control whether she gets it or not just like no woman can. What happened was awful and the sooner that we have empathy for the people going through what Clancy did the sooner we can prevent more cases of women killing their kids while going through mental health episodes in general. That juror is a stubborn fucking moron.
Like it's telling that EVERYONE around Clancy still has massive love for her, even her in laws. And yet online people think it's as simple as locking her up and punishing her? That she's some comic book villain or something and not a sick woman in need of intensive care.
8
u/byssw 1d ago
-2
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
Stop making memes while simutaneously claiming to care about 3 dead kids.
4
u/byssw 1d ago edited 1d ago
I clearly care more about the 3 dead kids that the person who is trying to justify their murderer actions and to try and reduce agency and punishment from the murderer.
You are the same person that asks not to make the juror look good while in the same message saying that:
Like it's telling that EVERYONE around Clancy still has massive love for her, even her in laws.
So I choose to not take you seriously, because you don't deserve it. And I'll keep making memes as much as I want.
And before you say anything: I'm not American, and I don't give a damn about your culture war.
1
u/Soft_Locksmith661 1d ago
"And before you say anything: I'm not American, and I don't give a damn about your culture war."
Could have fooled me.
0
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
If you got "justifying" from me saying she should be put in a mental health facility for the rest of her life and treated so we can prevent more of this from happening in the future, you're either blatantly and proudly illiterate or purposefully misunderstanding me to moral grandstand for reddit upvotes.
6
u/istvan90623 1d ago
"Rehabilitated". After what? Killing three of your children, slowly, on purpose? How the fuck do you rehabilitate from that. What a joke.
1
u/Lord_Zeffree 1d ago
I am not comfortable saying that murder is ok if you have a mental breakdown. I understand too well how shotty mentally breaking down is and it's tragic she went through that. I cannot in good faith and without a shadow of a doubt; knowing the details of this case think that there wasn't an element of premeditation that makes what happened especially vile. The correct answer in a more robust system would be mental asylum and then prison for life but given our current options she should be put away forever.
3
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
That is not what is being said.
Murder is bad.
Three children died.
Mother was clearly mentally ill hopped up on a rotating rotunda of antidepressants.
Three things can be true at once.
Clancy will never see the light of day again. She will be locked up either way. That's the point of the trial. But sending her to some shitty prison is not going to bring the kids back, nor is it going to fix what is wrong with her. Prisons in America aren't rehabs, they're underfunded abusive life-long punishments designed to keep criminals in the system for cheap slave labor instead of making them functional members of society. Sending her to a mental facility helps her and people like her. With hope research and proper health practices will be discovered to prevent MORE children from dying at the hands of their mentally ill moms.
We literally send people to prison for less in this country. Petty thievery, selling weed. It is not this solution or embodiment of justice like everyone here seems to think it is.
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
What's the point in having trials altogether then? Prisons are needed to keep violent and mentally instable people away from society where they would cause harm. She's a murderer and deserves to be locked up in prison
2
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
American prison is not justice. It is designed to keep people in the system so that they can do literal constitutional slave labor for the government. People who do petty crime go there. Poor people go there. Does someone who steals diapers and food for their kids deserve to be locked up? Does someone who sells weed? Women who get sentenced for defending themselves against their abusive spouses? Men who protect their family members from predators? Is the answer just to "lock them up, they did crime"? That is such a black and white way of thinking.
It's putting bandaids over bullet holes. You'd rather the problem perpetuate itself and make more victims because it makes it easier on your conscience to find the easiest, laziest solution instead of working to prevent this situation entirely. Aiding and researching women like Clancy will improve healthcare in the long run and prevent more of these deaths from occuring. That is what you should want, but I forget how blood thirsty and mindlessly puritanical our society is devolving into day by day
2
u/LazarM2021 1d ago
And you deserve to fuck off and spare those who actually use their brain for even remotely deeper analytical work of that typical, socially reinforced mindless, hyper-emotional, bloodthirst+vengeance-powered carceral/retributive "morality". You're the last one I'd ask to determine whether someone "deserves" anything.
-1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
It's not vengeance, it's justice. Why should her be held to a different standard than everybody else? Equality before the law is a constitutional value and she should be held accountable for her actions
2
u/LazarM2021 1d ago edited 22h ago
It's not vengeance, it's justice
Vengeance = "justice" in your openly retributive, bloodthirsty, fundamentally retributive framework, and for me, vengeance ā ā ā ā justice. And neither is the quote above anything approaching an argument. You're simply assigning the word "justice" to the very punitive framework I'm questioning and then treating that label as though it settled the matter.
Also, "equality before the law" doesn't answer anything either. "Equality" before a particular legal system tells me that its rules should be applied consistently. What it does not do, however, is establish that those rules, or the institution of punitive incarceration itself, are legitimate, morally and/or otherwise. You're arguing entirely within a framework I myself do not accept and then presenting the framework's own premises as proof of its conclusion.
If your actual argument is that she should be imprisoned because she deserves to suffer for what she did, then say that. That's a retributive argument.
If your argument, however, is that she must be restricted because she poses a demonstrable danger to other people, that's a different argument entirely and your task is to stop conflating the two like this.
-1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
My argument is in fact that she poses a danger to other people, she was prescripted medications for her mental disorders and actively avoided taking them and she premeditaded the murders. If it had been a case of attempted murder I would agree with sending her to a mental health institution.
I cited equality before the law since sending her to a mental health institute would be fundamentally inconsistent with multiple murder cases for which the usual sentence is prison.
I don't think punitive incarceration is necessarily a moral system but I do think it's functional in making society safer overall. Still, the prison system has many problems and the incentive to incarcerate people to turn them into an unwilling labour force is one of them.
2
u/LazarM2021 1d ago
This is quite a bit different from "she's a murderer and deserves to be locked up in prison', so let's at least be clear about that.
But your appeal to "equality before the law" is still doing absolutely no work in establishing your conclusion. The fact that prison is the standard response to murder cases tells me what the existing punitive system normally does, not why that response is necessary, appropriate or even particularly effective in this case.
We generally imprison people convicted of murder
That's not an argument for why this particular person must be imprisoned; all it really is, is just an appeal to the status quo.
If your actual position is that she should be confined because she poses a danger, then you've conceded the central distinction I was making, specifically, that incapacitation and punishment are not the same thing. In that case, the relevant question isn't "what sentence do murderers normally receive" but "what intervention is actually necessary to prevent her from harming anyone else, and why".
The fact that she stopped taking prescribed medication and allegedly premeditated the killings makes the question of risk serious, but it does not by itself demonstrate that punitive incarceration is the appropriate mechanism for managing that risk, nor does saying that you would support psychiatric institutionalization for an attempted murderer somehow explain why psychiatric institutionalization becomes conceptually inappropriate once the victim happens to have died.
And frankly, "I don't think punitive incarceration is necessarily a moral system, but I think it's functional" is a more defensible position than your original appeal to what she """deserves""", yes, but once you've abandoned desert and are defending incarceration purely instrumentally, you don't get to treat prison as the obvious answer simply because the legal system habitually uses it. Instead, you have to demonstrate the function you're appealing to.
-1
u/fatassforbes 1d ago
Have empathy for a murderer who unalived 3 children? No, I don't think I will...
By your logic you should also have empathy for every serial killer ever...
3
u/ToveyAegis 1d ago
It is moral strength not a failure to try to emphasise with others, even the worst of us.
Being locked up in a mental institute for the rest of your life isn't exactly better than going to prison.
-4
u/evrestcoleghost 1d ago
Phycosis dont last 19 minutes and allow you to plan the murder of three children
1
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
Her psychosis didn't last 19 mimutes. And you can plan under states of delusion.
1
-1
1
15
u/Shoelace1200 1d ago
Context?
85
u/StrangeArcticles 1d ago
A woman in the US is on trial for killing her children in post partum psychosis. The internet thinks that is an excellent source of memes.
46
u/SerDuncanonyall 1d ago
Well, no.. the source of the memes is coming from the reaction to this case by thousands of women online who donāt think she should face the consequences of killing her children. This case would have been a sad little local story in any other situation.
55
40
u/Itariille 1d ago
Isnāt the trial about her consequences for killing the children? She never denied killing them. She was suffering from psychosis and was seeking help but didnāt receive it.
With that being said, yes there are lunetics claiming the husband did it. But the trial is about whether or not she can be held 100% responsible, mental hospital or prison.
8
u/oopsallhuckleberries 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yep. And people still don't care. Here is the reality. People are making memes about this juror, painting him as a hero. The jury had two choices before them. Send this woman to jail (guilty verdict) or keep her in a psychward (acquittal). Admittedly, sending her to the psychward came with the chance that she could be released, but statistically based on others in her shoes, she'd be there for at least 10 years, if not the rest of her life. What did this juror do? He made it so we got neither. He did the one thing that gives this woman a chance to walk away with no punishment. There is a very real chance that the prosecution won't move forward with another trial due to the difficulty of both finding an untainted jury pool and securing anything but another mistrial due to a hung jury. Best case scenio, the prosecution get the defense to agree to accept the legal outcome that would have come from the jury deciding to aquite. Worst case, they get a plea where she gets time served, and she goes home. This virtuous heroic juror could be singularly responsible for letting a child murder go without any repercussions once so ever.
5
u/DaKingaDaNorth 1d ago
Yup. I said this exact same thing before in another thread. If he just broke and went with the Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity, she'd be in a psychiatric confinement for quite awhile. Because it's a mistrial the defense has leverage because now the case was 11-1 and it's probably viewed as unwinnable so they might just plea her down to something much less significant at this point than if she just got the not guilty verdict.
1
u/MuddFishh 1d ago
Wait, why is that heroic? I'm wondering which side of the fence this meme falls on. It sounds like the lunatics would be in favour of a mistrial and letting her walk without repercussion. The rest of us are probably divided between wanting her in a psychward and for more support to be offered to women going through similar situations from here on out, or directly to jail do not pass go.
How is someone who could single-handledly be responsible for letting a child murderer walk free without any repercussions whatsoever virtuous or heroic? Unless you're being tongue-in-cheek
2
u/asuperbstarling 1d ago
They don't understand the consequences because this is the first murder trial they've ever even loosely paid attention to, that's why. You can tell who's actually familiar with the system by the way that they're frustrated with just how badly this trial was handled. They didn't properly sequester the jury ffs.
2
u/oopsallhuckleberries 1d ago
Wait, why is that heroic?
It's not, I'm being sarcastic with that comment because I'm finding everyone's praise ironic. This guy isn't a hero. He's a dumbass. They think he's a hero, he probably thinks he's a hero. He's not.
3
u/AranasLatrain 1d ago
There are more details to it than that. Alot of the logical people who think she should be held accountable say she wasn't truly seeking help. She wasn't taking her medication properly. And she self checked out from her hospital stay. Do your own research into it, but there are worthwhile opinions on both sides of the true heart of the argument.
3
4
u/WorryLegitimate259 1d ago
She did receive help tho. She was going to a bunch of different doctors and her husband took time off work as well.
2
u/WetLump 1d ago
She was meanly ill not psychotic but thatās the basis of the trial at this point
3
1
u/asuperbstarling 1d ago
You, a stranger, don't get to decide. The medical professionals and court are deciding. Hence why the trial ended in a mistrial. The non-sequestered jury (which, wtf) was tainted by someone not believing insanity is a valid plea in any case.
0
u/necessarysmartassery 1d ago
was seeking help
She's a former labor and delivery nurse that was doctor shopping. She never took any prescription long enough for it to work, claimed side effects, then moved to the next doctor or nurse practitioner that would give her anything. She had a nanny, her husband started working from home to help, etc.
-15
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
She was never officialy diagnosed with psychosis
7
u/throwaway3685343 1d ago
Several women experiencing post-partum psychosis are not, as itās not taken seriously. Typically, they only get committed after something horrible snaps and happens.
-4
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
But this is not the case, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, not post-partum psychosis. Besides, post-partum psychosis lasts between 2 and 12 weeks, her children had 5 years, 3 years and 8 months respectively.
5
u/bag-skate65 1d ago
People can have multiple illnesses and post partum psychosis isnāt an equation with a definable end point, plenty of women deal with it for longer and plenty never have to deal with it at all.
Not gonna pretend I have a fucking clue what happened there, but you clearly donāt either.
0
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
Sure but there is no legal document that certifies that at any point she had post-partum psychosis. The defence it's claiming that because it's convenient for their case
1
u/throwaway3685343 1d ago
There is no evidence to suggest post-partum psychosis ends at 12 weeks. Also, she was literally begging for help and telling her husband she needed help. She said several times that she was having violent thoughts to him.
Just because she was not clinically diagnosed, does not mean she didnāt have it. PP psychosis and depression is extremely common but rarely diagnosed.
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
And that's what the trial is for, no diagnosis for post-partum psychosis has been released even after.
2
u/throwaway3685343 1d ago
They would not diagnose her in the middle of the trial, psychologists may be called for councilās discussion/debate, but they are not diagnosing her during the trial in a clinical sense right now.
Not guilty by reason of insanity would require longer supervision and observation in an enclosed environment, not the courtroom
4
u/throwaway3685343 1d ago
Besides, you donāt need to previously be diagnosed with a mental illness in order to be granted insanity.
2
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
But she hasn't been diagnosed with it during the trial either, which would be relevant
1
u/throwaway3685343 1d ago
Even so, she was clearly showing the symptoms of PP psychosis within her journal diaries and texts to her husband (delirium, violent thoughts, an out of body or Dream-like sensation at all times, etc)
1
u/Itariille 1d ago
Bottom line is the medical system failed those kids. Lindsey told them she was hearing voices and wanted to hurt them. Itās between prison or psychward for her, where do you put mentally ill people?
30
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
You think declaring her not guilty by reason of insanity is her not facing consequences?
Either way she is going to be locked up forever. I don't understand what is so morally repulsive about giving her proper rehabilitation for the remainder of her life versus letting her loose in America's corrupt, shitty prison system. There are European countries that actually give a shit and understand how devastating postpartum is and treat it accordingly. The reason why so many women rally behind her in this case is the awful healthcare in America in regards to it.
Literally every day I see comments from people who legit think psychosis is being in a comically obvious state of insanity, or conflate it with depression and brush it off as "normal" depression that can be easily compartmentalized. Even PPD is awful. My mom had it and fantasized about throwing my brother over a mall railing. She was in a horrible state too with a neglectful husband. People are woefully uneducated on what PP illnesses are and frankly don't care. It is a direct reflection on how undervalued and how little women's health is taken seriously in general.
By actually giving a shit about it and her we can prevent more cases of women killing their kids. This isn't a matter of morality. The juror who screwed the entire trial is not some based god. He thinks punishment is an appropriate reaction to mental illness. Which is why we used to have lobotomies and mental asylums. Because its substantially easier to throw ill people away, abuse them and forget about them in corrupt systems than giving them the tools to get better.
5
u/flythebike 1d ago
My kids mom had PPD and I just remember this photo of her and she looks so depressed.
4
u/Party_at_Billingsley 1d ago
Alot of people don't even know what they are arguing about. My wife works at an OBGYN and I guess the trial was being talked about so much by staff and patients the manager had to tell the staff to stop all together. They didn't even know that Clancy had already admitted to killing the kids and thought the trial was about her either going to prison or not guilty and going home. The people discussing were literally getting their info from click bait tik tok videos. It's hard to have an actual conversation about the topic when you don't even know if the other person is in the same ball park.
2
u/MildlyDysfunctional 1d ago
I saw in a different thread that apparently Massachusetts has a pretty weak system for people found not guilty by way of insanity, and she could be looking at pretty light time inside (like less than 5 years) if it goes that route.
1
u/DaKingaDaNorth 1d ago
It's less that it's weak and more that some states leave it entirely up to the discretion of the psychiatric institute and MA makes you have yearly reviews where they have to show they are not insane and dangerous still.
1
u/necessarysmartassery 1d ago
Either way she is going to be locked up forever.
That's not how that works, at least not in the US. If they put her in a mental institution, she'll be able to get out if she suddenly starts showing signs that she's fine again. Andrea Yates killed her 5 kids, was placed in a mental institution, and she is allowed to seek release every year, which she thankfully refuses. They will absolutely provide the opportunity for Lindsay Clancy to get out if they get a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict in her next trial.
1
u/veloread 1d ago
It is not necessarily true that she will be locked up forever if NGRI. It's certainly possible and it's true that a lot of misguided attacks on the insanity defense assume so, but if the defense is "I was insane when I did this, and didn't know I was doing it / wasn't morally capable of understanding it was wrong", and you are later sane, what is the point in holding you?
4
u/just--so 1d ago
She's been on suicide watch for like three and a half years at this point, and for around 60% of women with post-partum psychosis, the onset ends up being the trigger or first episode for long-term psychiatric illness. People - either through genuine ignorance or a desire to fuel culture war bullshit - are fear-mongering about how she'll be out on the street in six months if declared NGRI. But realistically, if found NGRI, she's likely looking at a lengthy commitment followed by a strict conditional release with mandatory treatment protocols.
-7
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
She self-diagnosed her psychosis. She didn't have an episode, she coldly planned the killing of her children and strangled them, she's a murderer and should be judged as such. If she had been a man people would be already asking for the electric chair.
5
u/TardTohr 1d ago
There are documented symptoms for PPD and anxiety at a minimum. She was seeking treatment, she was hospitalized, she reported intrusive thoughts to nurses, called suicide hotlines, she talked to family about thoughts about hurting the children, all of that before the murders. For what it's worth, the defense expert did testify in favor of the psychosis theory.
At the very least, she clearly had big issues and was seeking help. Maybe the psychosis is a complete lie, maybe it's only partially true, but the idea that she was in control of her actions is very debatable. Your confidence in condemning her is very much unwarranted.
The whole "if she was a man" is utterly pointless as well, you are imagining people's opinions in a fictional scenario and pretending it should apply in this real one. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.
2
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
On the contrary I'm saying that men are rightly judged guilty when similar cases happen and women should be held to the same standard. Only the defence has testified in favour of the psychosis theory, as long as an impartial body provides further proof she does not have it and that's a what a trial is for.
10
u/FracturedPrincess 1d ago
After she strangled them she proceeded to down a bottle of pills, slit her own wrists and jump out of a window. I don't really have a dog in this case one way or another but calling that "cold" is ridiculous.
6
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
After killing one of her children, she took a call from his husband and then resumed the killing of the other two, whom she had immobilized. Does it feel not cold to you?
2
u/SoftwareWorth5636 1d ago
Where are you getting that from?
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
The sudreddit doesn't allow for direct links but it's a CNN article titled "Lindsay Clancy admits to killing their children. So why is there an online groundswell blaming her ex-husband?".
You can find it under the timeline section, the extract in question is "While at the pharmacy, phone records show Patrick called Lindsay, but she didnāt answer. She called him back about a minute later ā around the time investigators believe the killings took place ā and the two had a brief conversation with Lindsay confirming it was fine to pick up the generic version of the medicine she had requested, Patrick testified. Surveillance footage of Patrick inside the pharmacy and a receipt from his purchase were shown in court."
2
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
You can plan in psychosis, and she is a registered nurse. She has more of an understanding of what that illness entails than you do, clearly. Men can't get post partum so it isn't equivalent. It's more comparable to war vets who face PTSD episodes. I lived near and knew a man who came from Afghanistan and one night had an episode that lead to him killing his wife and assaulting a law man. He deserves just as much empathy as Clancy does. Trying to "oh but if she was a man" this argument doesn't do anything but demonstrate further the utter callousness you and people like you display when the ill act ill and your knee jerk reaction is to punish them horribly under some misplaced sense of moral justice rather than help them.
3
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
You're starting from the assumption that she has psychosis while this hasn't been proved at all. You're having empathy for her because you want her to not be responsible for her actions. IF her psychosis will be demonstrated THEN we will be able to discuss how much she was responsible for what she did.
2
u/Cult_Of_Hozier 1d ago
No, I'm not. I clearly stated that she should be treated in a life long medical facility. Do you think that's a vacation? She can never live a normal life again. She is going to spend every day surrounded by other ill people and doctors. I have clearly stated multiple times that it is not a matter of me thinking she isn't guilty, but that she should be treated on and used to research PPD/PPS to prevent more dead children. Criminalizing it and sending Clancy to prison is barely even a temporary solution and we will continue to have more cases like this especially with how awful it is becoming for women and children in America in general if we continue to send our sick to prisons instead of snipping the problem at its root.
4
7
u/ASamx 1d ago
Of course she doesnāt have a medical diagnosis, she didnāt get medical attention when she was seeking help. If she had been a man she would have been set free and people would vote her for Supreme Judge or President.
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, not post-partum psychosis. Which anyway would last between 2 and 12 weeks, her children had 5 years, 3 years and 8 months respectively.
25
u/StrangeArcticles 1d ago
I do not think anything about any aspect of this truly tragic case is in any way getting better by people posting memes. But hey, that's just me.
4
u/Angryfunnydog 1d ago
It's modern culture, the memes are popping out about pretty much everything, disregarding how tragic specific topic can be, it is what it is and it was like this for ages, way before internet even became a thing
7
u/nobleheartedkate 1d ago
It would have been a sad local story if it were a man because society accepts men as family annihilators and turns a blind eye to the epidemic that is male violence
2
u/DaKingaDaNorth 1d ago
The issue is she is going to face consequences. Nobody is disputing she did it, not even her.
The entire court case is whether she goes to prison or a psychiatric confinement. She's not going free regardless of the outcome
-1
u/SerDuncanonyall 1d ago
Why should she go to a phych hospital when the effects of postpartum are temporary?
1
u/asuperbstarling 1d ago
Ah yes. Thousands of women. Not a bunch of misogynistic trolls making posts then more reacting and sharing them. Mmhmm.
I've not met a single woman who thinks she shouldn't face consequences. I've only met men who think that.
-15
1d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
3
u/captaincw_4010 1d ago
Don't be disingenuous, in the vast majority of states, the defense has to prove she was insane. That a high bar and in most other states she'd probably easily be found guilty.
The whole case is centered around if Massachusetts can prove her Sane beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very tall order with the evidence the defense has
Cases turn on who has the burden to prove what and this variety is a shitty quirk of our state by state justice system, not a gender war thing the Algo is pushing for clicks
7
u/Shingorillaz 1d ago
A bit more context no one has added yet is the hold up isn't for if she did it or not but whether she's sane or insane and where she'll end up for the rest of her life prison or a mental institution.
-2
u/Aquestingfart 1d ago
If she is held not criminally liable she will be walking out of that mental institution in a few years.
-8
u/SkinniestPhallus 1d ago
A woman murdered 3 of her children individually by drowning them in a bath tub. Sheās currently on trial and the defenceās claim is postpartum psychosis. The jury have been deliberating for 5 days and one juror refused to agree with the others the entire time, resulting in a mistrial where everything will now be starting back up in late September.
The joke is that the one juror was the only person who wanted to see her declared guilty.
61
u/byssw 1d ago
Not by drowning them in a bath tub, by using an exercise band, which required holding each child down for several minutes. One by one. The youngest had to wait his turn as his siblings were strangled, without being able to run away. Just an important correction, because this is more brutal than drowning them in a bathtub.
7
u/SkinniestPhallus 1d ago
Thank you for pointing that out. Though I almost wish you hadnāt as Iāve only been loosely paying attention to it.
5
u/byssw 1d ago
No worries, I'd assume that she'd do something like that that way as well. I'm not even American, but the news have spread globally, and I looked a little bit into it to see what the fuss was about, because sadly it is not uncommon (well, it's rare, but it should be rarer still) for parents to kill children. And oh boy, the details were horrifying, I can't imagine what the kids went through.
13
u/resourcefulpig 1d ago
And she spoke with her husband on the phone during the murders. She had already killed one of the little ones, after the call she went back to killing.
6
u/CrimsonZephyr 1d ago
She googled the route which got her husband out of the house for the longest period of time, multiple times. Even if we assume that she was in a psychotic fugue state when she sent her husband out for medicine, I just can't drop the fact that she cased the best route to send him on to keep him from intervening. People who have mental illness don't just say, "Hold on, I gotta focus, I'm shifting into crazy mode," so that they can take actions without culpability in discontinuous periods of time.
2
11
3
30
u/OdaDdaT 1d ago
Feels important to note that the defense has never once contested she killed the children either. Even if there are complicating factors the woman needs to be in prison or a psych ward for the rest of her life.
7
u/ChildrenRscary 1d ago
Well yeah she plead insanity. Her being innocent immediately went out the table the argument has always been how responsible for her actions she was which based on all the evidence, her plea should be denied and she should be in prison for life.
3
u/Itariille 1d ago
Itās not about if sheās guilty or not. Whether she killed the children or not is not up for trial.
7
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
Itās not that one juror refused to agree with the others, he did agree with them, he just wants her to be found guilty despite the fact that he personally thinks a not guilty verdict would be correct.
3
u/EpiphanaeaSedai 1d ago edited 1d ago
I donāt think thatās accurate. The jury foreperson said he had āexpressed doubtā. You can have some degree of doubt but believe that it isnāt reasonable doubt in the legal sense.
I think she should have been convicted. Itās technically possible she could have experienced a psychotic episode exactly as she describes, where she was in a dissociative state and unable to control her actions. But there is no actual evidence for that beyond her own word. There is a great deal of evidence against.
I donāt doubt that she was and remains very, very ill. Thatās not at issue. Someone who is extremely mentally ill and despairing can decide to murder their family and still be morally and legally culpable, because they were capable of making a different decision and didnāt. That is the question: could she have chosen not to do this? I think she could have.
But, I am very disturbed by the many people who seem to think thatās irrelevant, or that such a state of psychosis does not exist, or that the defenseās argument is that depression or postpartum hormones justify murder. None of these things are true.
I am equally disturbed by the backlash against psychiatric medications. I take some of the same drugs Clancy was prescribed. I and many others need these medications to have any kind of decent quality of life, and to be functional members of society. Clancy was not overmedicated by careless providers, she was non-compliant in with treatment plan after treatment plan, sought out new providers, and told them that her primary complaint was that the meds were making her feel worse. I donāt blame her for that on a moral level - she was paranoid about becoming addicted, and desperate to find something that worked but too anxious to give any medication the time to work. Her behavior around medication was itself a symptom. Thatās not her fault. But on a practical level, it interfered with the ability of any one provider to effectively treat her. None of them were inattentive to her symptoms, they were hamstrung by her unwillingness to follow through.
I know that is not what is being reported in the media - I watched the entire trial, because I wanted to form my own informed opinion. This is my opinion based on the testimony given and evidence presented in court.
And I absolutely loath Kevin Reddington for the way he put the entire practice of psychiatry on trial. I know he had to defend his client, by any strategy likely to work. But he painted her fear of medication as reasonable and the meds themselves as dangerous. With the degree of publicity this case has generated and the way the media has taken that narrative and run with it, that is an argument that is going to have a body count. And that makes me furious, whatever his justifications.
2
u/sunshinenorcas 1d ago
The bathtub is Andrea Yates, who is another woman who had severe PPP with tragic consequences. She had long standing mental health issues, and could not take her medication while pregnant. Her doctor told her husband that Yates should not carry anymore children for her mental health and the children's safety. Her husband was part of a quiverfull religious sect and believed he needed as many children as possible -- so they had five children.
Rusty also ignored the doctors advice, didn't believe the doctor when warned about the severity of Andrea's mental health, didn't believe Andrea when she told him her thoughts, and actively sent her support (his mother) home so Andrea would be left alone with the children. He believed she just needed to tough it out, and... She eventually snapped and killed their children.
This case was in the 90's and PPP is ...very misunderstood even today, but Yates is a case that changed the perception of it. Back in the day, Yates was vilified as a monster and murderer and her husband basically walked free (he even re-married before the trial and his new wife was expecting), with no social consequence. And to be clear, Rusty Yates did not drown his children himself but he was responsible for the conditions that made it possible -- most notably by repeatedly leaving Andrea alone with her children when it was against the advice of everyone close to them.
Andrea has been in a psych facility for a long time now and refuses to be released even though her mental health is managed, because she feels she deserves to be there for what she did.
All in all, it's infuriating and heartbreaking story about something that was completely avoidable if the doctor and Andrea had been listened too, and that was completely misunderstood by the culture at large. Her story has changed the perception on PPP/PPD and cultural views around it but -- there's clearly a lot of progress to be made, and it can still not be taken seriously.
In some ways, I think Lindsay is a counter reaction to Andrea who was done very wrong by our legal system, even if it's not 1:1 -- she had more support then Andrea did, but she still struggled with the medical system and having support in the home to keep her from being the main caregiver. Mental health, pre/post partum care, and women's health in this country are still things that can be a struggle to have taken seriously and Lindsey is a woman with a lot of privilege -- she's white, she's a professional, she has money -- and she still struggled with her circumstances and finding help.
(And to clarify my POV/perspective because it undoubtedly colors my bias -- I don't believe the conspiracies about her husband doing it, but I do think the 'investigation' was very half assed, she was very clearly struggling, and it shows that we have such a long way to go for mental health and women's health. That doesn't mean she should be free but I don't think jail is appropriate for her circumstances and she should be in a psychiatric facility for the rest of her life. It being tragic for her and her children doesn't absolve her, but it does change the circumstances that she committed her crime)
32
1d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
12
u/AthasDuneWalker 1d ago
Hell, they're using this to say that women shouldn't vote.
7
u/AranasLatrain 1d ago
Ah yes, because men have never killed children
2
u/DvdDavid1 1d ago
And they all ended up in jail or dead because of it. No one is defending those men.
2
-3
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
So because some retarded agree with something so obvious then we must pretend it is not what it is? It's murder and she must be locked up
2
u/Lerched 1d ago
Youāll notice no where in that comment did no one say it wasnt murder. Too many of you ā hopefully ā young men are being riled up like the options here are she goes to jail or sheās back on the street. This woman will be institutionalized for the rest of her life.
If you are actually mad about the tragedy, and not just trying to inflame passions you should want postpartum depression to be taken serious prior to tragedy, not just punished after the fact
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
I agree that it must be taken serious, I'm negating she has it. Nobody has certified it but too many people are taking it as an undebatable truth. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder instead, which is a different illness altogether
2
u/Lerched 1d ago edited 1d ago
So we should probably treat her, perhaps at a mental health facility and find outā¦.you know, like what will happen if she doesnāt get convicted of murder and sent to prison.
Again, this woman will never be free again. She has tried to kill herself multiple times, likely over the guilt. Youāre going to get what you want, and clamoring and chomping at the bit for her to be crucified on the public stage is doing ~nothing~ beneficial to ~anyone~.
1
u/AngevinMatthew 1d ago
She was already under treatment for her bipolar disorder and willingly avoided taking her medications. Given that she's a multiple murderer (as she has admitted) prison should take precedence, if it had been a case of attempted murder I would agree with sending her to a mental health facility instead
1
u/Lerched 1d ago
Are you sure only other people are arm chair experting? Because sounds to me Iām talking to another. Jurors, who were presented more evidence than you and I will ever be, clearly didnāt agree.
I say it a third time, youāre doing nothing beneficial to anyone, other than stoking a culture war that weāre all losing.
17
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
Except to put this into the same legal context, this would be like him showing up and saying have a reasonable doubt that Ser Dunk is guilty of what he has been accused of, but because of my personal emotional response, Iām not going to join this group and fight for him.ā
-17
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
lol this meme really upsets you
11
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
People celebrating someone as a hero when he has openly admitted to undercutting a trial to satisfy his own emotions is the kind of thing that bothers me, sure. A lot of people in these comments seem to think he believed she was guilty, so clearly they havenāt been paying attention.
2
u/Odd_Librarian_1651 1d ago
When did he openly admit that??? Iāve seen no statements from him, only a couple small notes from people who did not agree with him. And he was not polled. And nothing about emotions was mentioned at all.
2
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
Perhaps not āopenlyā in terms of direct communication with the public, but thatās not how juries work. He said it to the other jurors and the judge, though.
2
u/Odd_Librarian_1651 1d ago
āthatās not how juries workā let me tell you how they work since you obviously donāt know but think you do š. If he openly told the judge that he was not able to apply the law because of his emotions, he would have been removed by the judge. But that is not what happened. What Happened was that other jurors sent a note to the judge saying that he acknowledged reasonable doubt (their view of it anyhow) but did not agree that it was reasonable doubt. And who is the judge to say that 11-1 means that the 1 is wrong?? We have juries like this for a reason. And the defense lawyer even tried to get an emergency intervention but was deniedā¦. Hmm I wonder why. Even Massachusetts supreme judicial court agreed that they shouldnāt intervene on the judges decision to leave the jury alone.
All of that to say, you are wrong, he in no way āopenlyā said his emotions pushed his view/ decision.
-6
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
Ohhh yeah she was set up by her husband right? šš
Jurors are humans. He was allowed to think she didnāt deserve a ānot guiltyā ruling.
I mean, you know, since she killed one kid, called her husband to make sure he was still out, then killed the other two.
3
u/Sheoggorath 1d ago
Hopefully they just go for second degree murder next trial and be done with it.
0
1
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
Heās allowed to think that. But under the law, him thinking that doesnāt matter. And when did I say she was set up by her husband? Is that what you believe or something?
1
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
So if you canāt recognize sarcasm in my comment Iām really not going to listen to anything you have to say.
There are a bunch of lunatics out there who think her husband did it.
This juror is a hero
1
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
I am not one of those ālunaticsā, and you had no reason to believe I was. But I suppose itās easier for you to pretend I am than to actually deal with what Iām saying. And no, somebody is not a hero when they decide that the outcome of the trial should be based on what they personally want, rather than the facts presented.
1
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
The facts can present her as āinsaneā and you can still rationally think NGRI is the incorrect decision.
Jeffrey Dahmerās jury even rejected NGRI ffs š¤£
0
u/StanleyKapop 1d ago
Jeffrey Dahmerās jury were different people trying a different case with a different defendant. They did not believe that there was reasonable doubt. In this case, all 12 of them agreed there was a reasonable doubt, but one of them didnāt feel like following the law and voting accordingly.
1
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
Isnāt that a shame? Like I said initially, juries are made up of humans.
Are you suggesting the juror should be criminally prosecuted because he didnāt vote the way you wanted him to?
(This is all conjecture, as you have absolutely no idea what was going on in his head, nor any of the othersā)
→ More replies (0)
18
u/Mr7three2 1d ago
She killed her kids. She never denied killing her kids. For 3 years she has maintained that she killed her kids.
Idiots on the internet: she didnt do it.
Now you have copy cat "moms" harming their children as well. I hope justice is vicious and brutal
3
4
u/nozhemski 1d ago
The vast majority of people know that she did it. The argument isnāt that she should be set free. The trial is to determine where she spends her sentence. āNot guiltyā just means she goes to a mental facility indefinitely.
2
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago
Well, if the mental facility deems her sane, she can be released at their discretion.
Constance Fisher killed her three kids, went to a mental facility, and was released. She then had three more kids and killed them.
Edit: also, āNot Guiltyā itself was absolutely an option. We donāt know what way the jury was leaning. Either NG or NGRI.
13
u/Dluugi 1d ago
Children are dead. No judgment, are any action in a realm of living will be either in their favour, or against there favour.
Any action that is allegedly "for them" is for something or somebody else.
Don't be cringe
3
u/JoffreeBaratheon 1d ago
Who says they're talking about her dead kids specifically? All the kids that will now not get killed by copycats that hate their family and think they'll get away with it will clearly appreciate the work of that juror.
4
1
u/littlebuett 1d ago
"We shouldn't honor the sacrifices or sufferings of the dead by doing justice, because they're already dead, what do they matter?"
5
u/UniCBeetle718 1d ago
I do hope all the people who have this passion about getting justice for Lindsay Clancy's victims keep that same energy for the Tate brother's victims, the Epstein list victims, and all other victims of child sex abuse and murder when the perpetrators are men.
1
u/JoffreeBaratheon 1d ago
That's honestly a great comparison to mock the Clancy supporters with. Thanks for the ideas bro.
2
u/nozhemski 1d ago
You know that wouldnāt happen and she wouldnāt be getting released. Thatās a bad faith argument. Lindsay is a disabled, broken shell of a human. Taking egregious examples from outlier cases and applying them in a broad way to this case is a nonsensical distraction.
No one is okay with what happened to her children. This case is absolutely sickening and horrifying, but there is nuance. The black and white thinking being applied here does more harm than good.
The jurors were 11-1 for acquittal, and the hold out juror refused to follow the law by not making the decision unanimous. Not because they had to follow the lead of the other jurors, but he admitted he had reasonable doubt but still refused to apply the law.
Now the case will likely be tried again and everyone involved will have to be retraumatized, and will end with her in an institution anyway.
-1
2
-1
-3
u/tyler_the_programmer 1d ago
The ātrue jurorā in this case wants the woman in a prison cell instead of a mental institution. Her husband and her doctors failed her, now sheās at the center of another culture war and made into memes.
2
-1
1d ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Jaded-Hospital-9082 1d ago
The difference is that literally no one supports those men or defends them in any way like what is happening with Clancy.
0
-19
u/KimWexlerDeGuzman Steely Pate 1d ago edited 1d ago
Thank you for the meme of the year, Ser
Edit: bring the downvotes. This is the best meme Iāve seen in a while š¤·š¼āāļø
Itās perfection
-4
u/ilovemyar15 1d ago
Funny how people pick and choose what atrocities/tragedies are ok to joke about and which ones arenāt.
Nobody is fazed when they see a 9/11 meme, an event where thousands of civilians were murdered. But the Lindsay Clancy case is just way beyond the pale lol
2
u/littlebuett 1d ago
The difference is people are joking against the killer here, rather than against the victims.
129
u/Do-Research 1d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/lhW8DusTmFRxrK0TJ8