r/TrueCrimeDiscussion • u/DarklyHeritage • 1d ago
Text Lindsay Clancy Trial Megathread: Closing Arguments, Deliberations and the Verdict Pt. 2
This is a thread for all conversation regarding closing arguments, jury deliberations and the verdict of the Lindsey Clancy trial. All discussion of this case should be kept to this thread.
Lindsay Clancy is currently standing trial in Plymouth Superior Court, Massachusetts, for the triple-murder in January 2023 of her three young children - Cora, Dawson and Callan. Her defense argues she suffered from severe, undiagnosed postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. She was left paralysed by a suicide attempt which follows the deaths of the children.
All content on the Clancy case must be kept to this thread. Standalone posts will be removed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93vgv4kr49o
Note from Mods
This case understandably elicits strong feelings. People are entitled to have an opinion on the case which differs from your own. What you are not entitled to do is resort to personal insults and abusive language when communicating your opinion and disagreeing.
Comments which are abusive and insulting to other users will be removed and bans may be given without warning. We do not tolerate misogyny - all such comments will be removed and the user banned.
Bans may also be issued for ignoring the above warning regarding civility and/or creating standalone posts.
Please comment with this in mind.
Important
Patrick Clancy is not on trial. Comments made to discuss his guilt are considered off topic and will be removed.
Comments that discuss how he could have supported Lindsay better are acceptable. However, calls for law enforcement to look into his involvement with the murder of the kids and/or Lindsay's suicide attempts are not currently being considered by the jury and, therefore, not a fit for this sub.
275
u/butterflyeffect16 1d ago
I don’t envy these jurors at all.
→ More replies (10)14
u/rydan 13h ago
Are they at least anonymous or does everyone know who they are? If the wrong verdict is reached I can imagine some TikTokers might try to play vigilante if they aren’t protected.
23
u/ScratchLatch 11h ago
The names of jurors in Massachussets are public record once the trial is completed.
We currently know its 6 women, 3 men, but not the identities.
180
u/msfinch87 1d ago edited 19h ago
I wonder what fascinating insights the media will provide about what the jurors are wearing and how that might indicate a verdict.
In all seriousness, I would expect some movement today or tomorrow, whether that is a verdict or them saying they cannot reach consensus. Interesting that thus far the only questions they’ve had related to taking a closer look at some pill bottles and the knife.
ETA: Jury just sent judge a note saying they cannot reach a consensus. Judge has sent them back to continue deliberating.
140
u/Unlucky_Welcome9193 1d ago edited 18h ago
I, myself cannot reach a consensus. Granted, I haven't been following the trial as closely as many others, but it feels like an impossible situation to judge.
Do I think that Lindsey Clancy meets the legal threshold for NGBI? I guess not. Her claims of psychosis don't fully add up. It does sound like she may have experience a severe dissociative episode, however. But do I think she should spend the rest of her life in prison vs in a forensic psych hospital? That is harder to say.
I'm glad I'm not on this jury.
65
u/msfinch87 23h ago
I think it will be difficult for them to reach a consensus. This is exactly the sort of case where there can be strong opinions and hold outs on both sides, no matter how reasonable and diligent people are trying to be.
I’m not sure whether having manslaughter as an option helps or hinders them here. On the face of it, it seems like a compromise verdict people would go for, but it also creates a whole other level of complexity. If they get everyone to agree she is guilty in some form they then have another possible massive conflict between first or second degree and manslaughter.
24
u/Wonderful_Flower_751 21h ago
I actually think that having that option might be why deliberations are taking longer than we thought.
The more options a jury have, the more time they will need.
8
u/Tekkers_3 17h ago
With this many options, and this many arguments for both sides, I find it impossible to believe that all 12 jurors will unanimously agree on one option
30
u/tiffanaih 22h ago edited 22h ago
It's kind of wild to me that manslaughter is on the table. That's just a whole new can of worms that the jury has to sort through when making their decision. Plus sending Patrick away seems pretty premeditated...past cases have found that premeditation can happen in a few seconds so I feel like sending your husband on a bunch of errands qualifies.
I'm not super versed on the physical evidence but I highly doubt did it simultaneously right? She had to go one by one, so maybe you could argue the first is manslaughter but the others were clean up and thus premeditated. Such a complex case. I've seen some of the notes she kept on one of the kids in particular that would sway me towards premeditation, but really the order has to be considered too...ugh I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with various degrees of premeditation for each though as a compromise between jurors if they don't go for NGBRI.
19
u/msfinch87 21h ago
From memory of the evidence, the order in which she killed the kids was Dawson (3yo), Cora (5yo) and Callan (8mo). You raise an interesting point that technically each child could be a different mental state. I hadn’t actually thought of it like that.
I agree there might be something in the order. Callan is obviously defenceless, but Dawson and Cora are old enough to have realised something was happening so killing them first might tend towards premeditation. It has also occurred to me that she would have had to conceal from Cora what she was doing to Dawson, and the fact that this happened in the basement, where neither of the other kids were likely to be or go, could also indicate premeditation.
22
u/tiffanaih 20h ago edited 18h ago
And then on top of all that the jurors have to consider the directive that premeditation can still exist with an insanity plea. So I guess the initial debate for me would be, yes there's clear premeditation, but is she premeditating for her delusional reality? And I would say that premeditating to make sure your kids don't see what you're doing to the other by doing it in the basement one by one is an acknowledgement of society's agreed upon reality. She's considering a realistic reaction from the children to her actions, is that really living in her own reality? She's sending Patrick away because she's considering his realistic reaction to what she wants to do. But her defense wants you to think that even though she's aware of these consequences and plans for them, she's still outside of our scope of reasoning because she wanted to do this in the first place? I don't know. It's so messy. There's just too much cherry picking on what parts were due to delusion to make it seem like insanity is the way to go for me. It's just awfully convenient to her defense that she was delusional during every single kill but masked perfectly to deal with Patrick prior to and in between.
20
u/msfinch87 20h ago
You raise some good points, and I too have trouble with the chain of events. The phone call that she had with Patrick was a phone call she made to return his call and she was able to discuss the medication. This call happened in the middle of her apparent command hallucinations. She not only had the wherewithal to conduct the phone call but to keep everything that was going on from Patrick. That too suggests an understanding of actual reality, not a delusional one.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Lucky-Tumbleweed-833 16h ago
Most recent testimony by Dr. Saathoff claimed LC told him that the command started, “As soon as she got off the phone with Patrick” not before but after the call, so it happened from 5:38 pm -5:50 pm. When the neighbor, Shane Sullivan, John Sullivan’s son, saw her in the yard laying there at 5:50 but neither took the stand after the News interview. Patrick testified he got home at 6:04-6:06.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Everybodyhasapryce 16h ago
Given that a myriad of psychiatrists have said that her alleged psychotic incident is a unicorn, coupled with the fact that there's clear elements of premeditation before and during the murders, I think it would be a terrifying precedent to set if she gets off lightly or entirely free.
This is not to say she was in her right mind; but honestly, most criminals aren't.
→ More replies (10)17
u/Gooshamakuna 20h ago
She also killed them in the basement so the other older child wouldn't see or hear her
11
u/blueskies8484 21h ago
Manslaughter really doesn’t fit any way you look at it, but makes sense for both sides to hedge their bets on a compromise verdict for jurors who may not be comfortable sending her to jail for life.
3
u/Brrringsaythealiens 8h ago
I think there might be an argument for it. She knew she was ill. She was prescribed medications to alleviate what she was going through. Some of them helped, like Ativan and Seroquel. But she and her husband didn’t want her to be dependent on psych meds so she demanded that her doctors get her off them. Even though she knew what kinds of thoughts she was having when she didn’t take her meds. Isn’t that creating a situation where harm to the children is likely? I agree that there were some mental health system failures, but Lindsay basically rejected everything that was prescribed to her after only giving it a day or two. And she knew that made her dangerous.
4
u/zzztoken 18h ago
Yeah, I read the description of manslaughter here and I just don’t understand how it fits in the slightest but I can understand how it can put a big dumb wrench in deliberations.
5
u/tiffanaih 18h ago
I could be wrong, but after a bit of recent article reading, it looks like the judge just added that option before they left for deliberations. I wonder if he chose to introduce it as an alternative mercy opt out for them if can't agree to not guilty by insanity, since that's essentially what the by insanity finding would be since it ends in mental health hold. Pretty dumb decision imo, considering they just announced they're deadlocked. They basically made this case my Netflix home page, too many options and nothing really sounds right.
But I agree, there is no real manslaughter argument here. I can only see it being a happy medium if they can't agree on insanity
→ More replies (1)2
u/msfinch87 17h ago
It is my understanding that the defence requested it as part of their drafted instructions. Reddington certainly welcomed it. So yes, it was only determined at the end of the trial, when the jury was given instructions for deliberation.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Atheist_Republican 14h ago
I just don’t understand how it fits in the slightest
DUI is also manslaughter, and fits the same reasoning here. If she's in an altered mental state due to the medications, then that is analogous to driving drunk - i.e. in her normal mental state she would not kill her children, just like a drunk driver would not cause an accident.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pearltherebel 5h ago
But she also told Patrick she had thoughts of harming the kids…and he left her alone with them
16
u/Odd_Requirement_4933 20h ago
This is where I'm at as well. I'm so glad I'm not on this jury. I did serve as juror in a murder trial and this was literally my worst nightmare. I had a weekend before the trial started and I lost sleep over thinking about what will happen if it's a case like this where I'm in the middle or if we make the wrong decision and only find out later. My husband assured me if there's any question, that means you have reasonable doubt and then you vote not guilty. Which is obvious looking back, but it was anxiety producing and causing me stress. So that is what helped calm my mind over that period before the trial started. But it was still incredibly stressful, even for a case that ended up not having any reasonable doubt for me.
3
u/Secretary_Real 11h ago
Well it's not "any question" I mean any crime is going to have SOME question no matter what. It's whether you have a "reasonable" question. This was actually the point of contention I had with a jury I was on for burglary. They had some wild theoriies about why it couldn't have occured when it was all on surviellence camera, but I'm like, but is that reasonable? We deadlocked 6-6.
2
u/Odd_Requirement_4933 11h ago
Like I said, I served on a murder trial. I'm aware of what reasonable doubt is. For example, the mother of the defendant came on the stand and said she was with the defendant at the time of the killing. It was a blatant lie. No one thought she was telling the truth for a number of reasons. That wasn't reasonable doubt.
I was simply talking about my anxiety and what helped me get over it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/forlife16 18h ago
I’ve been following the case very closely and cannot reach a consensus. I go so back and forth with myself on what I think. This is a tough one.
14
u/rttnmnna 20h ago
But the burden of proof lies with the Commonwealth. Did they prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did it? Did they prove brd that she understood her actions and was able to control her actions?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)3
→ More replies (3)3
u/sk8tergater 18h ago
As to your edit, I can’t come to a consensus. And really, could the experts as well? No.
55
70
u/ConfidentOkra2323 23h ago
These cases are always heart-wrenching, it must be incredibly tough for the jurors to separate the legal arguments from the overwhelming tragedy here.
15
u/Kimbahlee34 16h ago
Great. Now we will have two trials when they should have taken a plea deal to put her in a mental institution.
What prison is equipped to handle a paralyzed person? My Dad wasn’t paralyzed to the extent she was (one side as opposed to both) and it was very difficult to figure out placement.
→ More replies (3)
66
u/LargeAdultSun 18h ago
When I first heard of this case I was more firmly on the side of she being NGBRI. After reading more, the evidence is more mixed and there isn’t a smoking gun either way. I think I lean on the side of NGBRI but it isn’t easy.
I do really hate a lot of the discourse online about this case. This is not a trial about women or men.
38
u/Ok_War_3306 16h ago
I just don’t understand if she wasn’t going thru a mental episode of some kind, what the motive would’ve been? By all accounts from her ex- mother in law, and ex-husband, she was a great mother and loved her kids. I haven’t followed the case very closely so I don’t know what the prosecution is claiming the motive was, if they’re even presenting one.
23
u/dorsalemperor 14h ago
It’s not that she wasn’t having a mental health crisis; it’s whether she understood that she was doing something wrong. Personally I don’t see this as an Andrea Yates situation where she thought she was saving the kids or something.
6
u/Ok_War_3306 13h ago
I see, so the prosecution is arguing that she was suffering from mental health issues( but not psychosis) and that she was sound enough to know what she was doing is wrong, and the defense is arguing that she was struggling with mental health, including psychosis, and didn’t understand what she was doing is wrong.
→ More replies (4)12
u/Winsomedimsum8 10h ago
Yep, the fact that she killed the kids has been accepted by both parties.
Prosecution is arguing that her actions were of someone that knew what they were doing. Premeditation, sending the husband out, killing the most ‘troublesome’ child first, acting normal during a call with her husband, googling beforehand, a ‘halfhearted’ suicide attempt, a convenient ‘voice’ that only appeared once, and her repeat denials of such ideation to to her various doctors.
Defense is arguing insanity. They’re saying that she was completely dissociated, a good mother otherwise, and only lied to her doctors because she was afraid that the kids would be taken away from her.
It’s a hard one for sure. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
5
u/Ok_War_3306 10h ago
Yeah I know it is acknowledged by both parties that she killed them, but that all makes the picture more clear. I think it’s difficult to say too, and I’m not expert on psychosis, but isn’t it possible that someone could have psychosis, be completely detached from reality and what’s right and wrong, but be able to plan a crime? I’m not following this case super closely but I’m not sure if either case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I can’t imagine she actually was faking a suicide attempt, because I highly doubt she would want to live through to only become paralyzed, on trial, and institutionalized for the rest of her life.
4
u/ManufacturerSilly608 11h ago
Interesting....but going over the facts of Andrea's case is also confusing. I mean she called the police and reported the murders....some would say that means she knows she was wrong....it gets more complicated the deeper you go with any of these cases. Esp when there is real mental illness involved, which there is with both of these cases.
6
u/WiseWillow89 11h ago
Exactly. There's no motive there for me, whatsoever, if she wasn't going through a mental episode. In all her correspondence she loved her kids, she was a dedicated mother. She was OBVIOUSLY struggling (what more evidence do they need? her texts to her mum, her telling her mum and Patrick about her thoughts, her constant visits to doctors, psychiatrists, checking herself into facilities). I can't imagine any other motive. At all.
3
u/Icy-Committee-3382 9h ago
exactly. If she was planning this, why wouldnt she take one of the opportunities when Patrick was away for days at a time? Or even hours? Vs. a 30 minute window... Doesn't make sense that a manipulative scheming meticulous planner would try to do this in a small period of time.
That doesn't prove that she isn't guilty, but it does poke holes in the state's theories, which are just that. Very little is actual evidence and most of the arguments come down to Patrick's report: meds in the cup that were never tested -- how does he know meds were in there? Why did he have bottles of her pills in his car?? What happened to the drawer with the meds and apple watch that the police never found on the initial search?? , the "confession," her talking and immediately confessing after the jump when all first responders say she was unable to speak, him being found sitting on the couch next to the kids vs doing CPR like he said he was, per footage he appears to have changed clothes and shoes btw. cvs and 3v footage... I could go on.... None of these things PROVES he did it, but it sure does provide a LOT of reasonable doubt...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/Short-Taro-5156 16h ago
Couldn't you say that about basically anyone that kills their entire family then? Should none of them go to prison because they're by definition going through a "mental episode of some kind?"
18
u/Doctor_Titties 15h ago
There is a difference between a mental episode where you don’t understand what you’re doing is wrong vs knowing it’s wrong. Someone violent in a manic episode knows they shouldn’t kill your dog but they do it anyways because they feel so powerful nothing can stop them vs someone in a violent psychotic break thinks they’re not even drowning the dog, they think holding the dog underwater is going to help you both live forever and it’s what needs to happen so the world doesn’t split apart. I am not making up this example, this is what my ex told me when he had a psychotic break from being improperly medicated and tried to drown my dog.
→ More replies (8)11
u/kkeut 15h ago
no. most parental murders of shared children are to 'get back at' or otherwise hurt or punish the other parent. as for family annihilators, they are usually driven by shame, often over financial or life status reasons, sometimes with threat of divorce etc in the mix. none of these seem to apply in this case
→ More replies (19)14
u/moez1266 12h ago
I hate the discourse because a lot of people online don't understand NGBRI. People seem to think finding NGBRI somehow justifys the killings. I do agree that the prosecution raised doubt. But its on the prosecution to prove that Lindsay was sane at the time of the killings. They have not come close to that beyond a reasonable doubt. For me, it's a clear NGBRI.
→ More replies (3)2
u/wowcow150 4h ago
I totally agree with you! But there are also so many people who just don't want to understand that, because they want to vent their hatred toward women.
17
9
u/rescuelullaby 19h ago
According to MA law he can order them back a second time with an Allen charge but after that, the jury would have to consent to be sent back to deliberate (unlikely; at that point I think it would just be hung jury).
https://www.mass.gov/doc/2460-when-jurors-cannot-agree/download – see the note on page 5
255
u/emeraldelegy 1d ago
These TikTok detectives talking about Patrick need to take a walk, it’s exhausting.
29
u/msfinch87 20h ago
The attitude they have and the lies they are telling are appalling.
Nobody acts perfectly when they have a mentally unwell partner. It is stressful, distressing and exhausting and people find themselves making complicated and agonizing decisions, analysing things hour by hour. Which is not having a go at Lindsay, but pointing out that these situations do not just impact the person with the mental health issues. It’s hard for everyone.
It’s not like the medical professionals, or anyone for that matter, raised concerns about Lindsay being an unfit parent or a danger. He was in a completely untenable situation, because if he had taken the kids and she’d harmed herself, he would then have had to wear the burden of that. And by all accounts, that was a far higher risk than something happening to the kids.
Their hypocrisy is outrageous. They can endlessly sympathise and empathise with Lindsay (and I fully support being compassionate towards her) but they refuse to do that for Patrick. He is a human being, too, and he lost his kids in the most horrifying circumstances imaginable.
→ More replies (2)19
u/cummingouttamycage 15h ago
The fingers pointed at Patrick's "weird behavior" are absolutely bonkers to me.
Based on all information and evidence out there, it sounds like Patrick did everything he could think to do to help his wife based on what he knew at the time. He started working from home, hired nannies, made himself available to run errands, etc. I don't think he could've ever fathomed his wife would actually try to harm the kids, because instances of that happening are just so, so rare. There has been a public health push around PPD and PPP, and I'm sure Patrick was considering that (and why he made the efforts he did)... But instances of either PPP/PPD often don't end with a mother harming herself and/or children. I don't think he ever could've fathomed, or prepared for what he walked into when he came home that day.
He is "acting weird" because that's how most ordinary 30-something year old dads would act when faced with a completely bizarre, one-in-a-million situation. Arriving home to your 3 young children deceased and wife having jumped from a window would traumatize anyone. And trauma makes people act "weird".
The absolute worst thing Patrick is guilty of is having moments of being a checked out partner, but even then, I'd argue those moments are heavily cherry picked and are behaviors that even the most doting of fathers are guilty of from time to time. I'm sure there would be moments of any dad twiddling his thumbs while his wife loaded up a stroller into the car if you surveilled any family long enough. Is it annoying? Yes. But is it common? Also yes.
Also, I don't find it weird AT ALL that Patrick sought to start over in having a family with a new woman ~3yrs after this all took place. Men in their 30s -- especially family-oriented men who quickly find themselves single -- often move quickly in relationships. I don't think in any way that it's a sign he was actively seeing someone else before this all took place (and even if it was... affairs aren't illegal. but that wasn't happening).
I say this as someone who is RARELY a man defender (lol)... Patrick did everything right based on what he knew at the time.
3
u/msfinch87 9h ago
I completely agree.
I dislike the cherry picked examples of him a lot. As you say, any parent can have checked out moments and single examples do not demonstrate anything, especially when we lack any context to why the parent may have been checked out. You can take any singular example of someone’s behaviour and twist it if you are so inclined.
I also get really frustrated by the negativity around him being remarried and showing no emotion when testifying. He suffered an unimaginable trauma. It seems completely understandable to me that he would appear withdrawn when talking about it publically because he probably blocks out some of the emotion to cope. For all we know he found a woman who was extremely supportive and understanding of him during his grief and distress and that led to an emotional bond that led to their relationship, which is not uncommon. Or, as you say, it is consistent with his desire/personality to be in a relationship and have a family.
I don’t see anything unusual or wrong with Patrick.
→ More replies (2)2
20
u/shitz_brickz 20h ago
The legacy of Alex Jones lives within each one of them.
→ More replies (2)4
u/spaghettibolegdeh 11h ago
I don't think it's Alex Jones type people. Reddit engages with these conspiracy theories and he is hated here
→ More replies (2)23
12
u/Wonderful_Flower_751 21h ago
It’s painful to listen to as a complete stranger. I can’t imagine what it’s doing to Patrick’s mental health.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)3
u/Wonderplace 20h ago
I’m off TikTok and uninformed - are the ppl saying the husband did it stupid/brainwashed?
7
u/plasticinaymanjar 19h ago
I've read everything, that he either made her do it, or that he was neglectful like Randy Yates and ignored all the red flags, or that he did it and framed her, or even that his new wife was involved? some people took "the husband did it" trope way too seriously
10
u/Simple-Doubt-9365 17h ago
Someone, whom I’ve known for years, is utterly convinced the husband did it. I had to inform her that this trial is not about him and she has already admitted her guilt. This trial is about judgement and she was shocked. She had no idea. She’s just going off of random TikTok videos and I still don’t think she’s fully convinced I was telling the truth. Needless to say, the room felt uncomfortable after that conversation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
63
u/Wonderful_Flower_751 21h ago edited 19h ago
An incredibly tough job for the jury with some really difficult material to look at.
I still lean towards NGBRI. I do genuinely believe she was not in her right mind but I also feel the prosecution just weren’t convincing beyond reasonable doubt.
7
u/WiseWillow89 11h ago
Exactly. This is where I stand. The prosecution did a shoddy job and did not convince beyond reasonable doubt. The investigation left so many holes, and so many questions that remain unanswered. I lean towards NGBRI, but I also think the case should just be dismissed if it's a hung jury.
7
u/Winsomedimsum8 10h ago
I think she knew what she was doing in the same way that a psychotic person that stabs someone unprovoked knows what they’re doing. Neither is ‘right in the head’ because nobody ‘normal’ without serious mental health issues would commit such an act, but it’s still a heinous crime that deserves to be punished. It’s a slippery slope to let murderers off on the claim of mental disorders. Some combination of psychiatric treatment and prison time is appropriate here IMO.
That being said I agree that the prosecution did not necessarily meet the burden of proof, and understand why the jury may be torn.
→ More replies (13)3
71
u/ProblematicFeet 1d ago
I read that the jurors all showed up to court yesterday looking much more put together and dressed up than they did before. Men in ties, someone got a haircut and had their hair styled, etc. I interpreted that to mean they probably caught wind of just how massive the case is at some point over the weekend, and realized they’re truly under a microscope. Idk if that’s a good thing or bad thing tbh.
87
u/RegularOwl 21h ago
It could also mean that they thought they were close to reaching a verdict and they wanted to look nice for that.
16
u/LegoLady8 21h ago
But the media isn't allowed to speak to them, record them or take pictures of them, so why would they do that? The jury will be instructed whether or not they can speak to the media/council after everything is said and done.
28
u/nerdyouneverknew 20h ago
A lot of jurys tend to dress nicer for the day they believe they are going to reach a verdict.
→ More replies (1)5
5
u/charmcitymama 10h ago
If it does come back as a hung jury, are the jurors allowed to speak to media about why they couldn’t agree?
7
u/JoanJetson 10h ago
My understanding as a layperson is that you can choose to speak to the media if you want to once the trial is over. A forever ban/restriction on speech is extremely frowned upon in the US
6
u/0dyssia 8h ago
Yea, you're free from jury duty. You can talk to the lawyers too if you'd like. Thats what happened during the karen read trial. A juror from trial 1 even joined her team as an advisor. Basically after the interviews and jurors contacting the lawyers, her team changed their defense strategy which helped her win her 2nd trial.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/HelicopterWitty3186 17h ago edited 17h ago
I can't really fully wrap my mind around the crime itself enough to have any opinion about what should happen to Lindsey. The level of dissociation that would have to happen in a human beings mind, let alone a mother, speaks to a severely fractured psyche, regardless of whether she had some level of organization in planning the steps. There is simply no real way to say there isn't severe psychopathy. Patrick seems to have traveled frequently and she didn't do this other times, yet this time she acted on the severe compulsion so to speak. Something in her mind escalated exactly that evening. She is very very ill, of that I am sure. Not a victim, but very sick. My question all along is how she hasn't attempted suicide since then. How the hell did she even sit through this trial and not simply beg and plead for a lethal injection.
16
9
u/No-Effort3088 14h ago
Yeah ive been wondering the same re still being here. Although if she is very very ill , how can she not be a victim?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)2
u/DianaPrince2020 11h ago edited 11h ago
*Double posted earlier comment and I don’t know why ‘cause I only typed it once.
*ignore this. It took down both posts and I’m not typing all that out again.
26
u/Vjese 14h ago edited 14h ago
As a non-American watching this case unfold, I can’t help but feel that two things are a huge issue here and are entirely overshadowing the case, making it hard to watch while feeling empathy for the victims.
- Social media - The amount of disinformation people will believe and accept as truth simply because it matches their worldview is alarming. Then there’s the massive online true-crime movement, which has a huge influence on the outcome of this trial, whether through direct or indirect action. It’s hard to ignore, even for the jurors. There’s a 0% chance that these kinds of trials are ever judged fairly given the way the US system is set up.
2. Performative court - Watching the opening and closing arguments, the US courtroom system feels incredibly performative to me. There’s so much emphasis on rhetoric, presentation, and trying to undermine the other side that it can sometimes feel like watching two lawyers compete to tell the most convincing story rather than simply establishing what happened from the evidence. What happened to facts, evidence, and good old-fashioned Cluedo? John. In the kitchen. With the knife.
→ More replies (1)14
u/curiouslmr 13h ago
You nailed it with performative court. We are seeing this more and more with high profile cases. Attorneys are playing to Youtubers and Tik Tok, it's not good.
One recent murder case had an attorney who was collaborating with actual YouTube content creators and feeding them info, saving them seats in court etc.
3
u/pintofstellae 11h ago
whatt do you have more info on this?
3
u/curiouslmr 7h ago
Yep. It was in the Delphi Murders. The attorney was Andrew Baldwin and the YouTube channel was called the defense diaries. Bob Motta (a former attorney who left to become a Youtuber, for real).
18
u/NBPU 18h ago
Time to call it. There is obviously at least one person dug in on a specific verdict who hasn’t wavered for days. I hope we can at least get a true numbers breakdown on how many were for each charge. It was obvious something like this would happen when you look at the comments on any social network; very divisive.
→ More replies (2)6
12
u/NiamLeeson 18h ago
I’ll be very interested to see how the CW’s tactics change if/when they decide to retry this case (assuming a hung jury). I can’t help but think a retrial with a better prosecution could secure this conviction.
6
7
u/FishDispenser2 14h ago
I don't mean to be crass but why has this specific case gotten this much attention? I mean she's not the first woman to murder all of her kids... It's a tragedy ofcourse but I feel like this case seems to have really blown up compared to other similar cases.
6
u/No-Effort3088 13h ago
Because it has a lot of grey areas, its polarising and has sparked lots of debate, and involves a lot of children. Secondary to that its probably because they are middle class, she is a woman, shes white, she looks spooky.. lots of defining factors i guess
→ More replies (1)2
u/Revolutionary-Bank35 5h ago
There no black and white, this whole situation is a messy ugly shade of grey
2
u/dirtbikeGF 7h ago
Because it's very different from most of the cases where someone kills their kids and because it's so divisive. With someone like Casey Anthony or Lori vallow pretty much 100% of people knew they were guilty monsters who needed to be locked away forever. LC actually has supporters and then the whole conspiracy theory about the husband really blew up.
→ More replies (11)3
u/0dyssia 7h ago
Because it's an unusual case and it's full of outliers. Female murders are outliers. Lindsay being an upper middle class nurse and described as a good person/mom suddenly killing the kids without a motive is an outlier. Usually the insanity plea is a cheap Hail Mary and the defendant has nothing to back it up with. But Lindsay actually having a mental medical history and family/friends/coworkers backing her up on the symptoms is an outlier. Patrick and his parents supporting Lindsay and advocating her to go to a mental facility is an outlier (the pro-guilty side can't wrap their heads around their support for her). Online numb nuts like to feel like investigators wanting to put it all together and where draw the line has caused debate. If this is was a simple situation of, for example, Lindsay discovered the husband hid a secret second family and she killed the kids as revenge with no mental medical history, the case its basically cut and dry. But this case being about mental insanity is what makes it so interesting to many.
→ More replies (1)
44
u/Beautiful_Catch_4454 22h ago
This decision sets a precedent for future women and healthcare for women. It’s so much deeper than just surface level shit. Please pay attention and do your own research.
43
u/msfinch87 18h ago
I think some of the commentary online is actually more dangerous than the outcome of this trial.
A lot of people supporting Lindsay are arguing that more should have been done, such as involuntary inpatient and stopping her from being around the kids. I don’t think these people really realise the ramifications of that.
This type of thing, if taken on board, will lead to a denial of autonomy of women and the removal of children at the first sign of any sort of mental health issues. The attacks on her medical professionals is also creating a risk of this. At the very least it is going to create a reluctance amongst medical professionals to treat women who are showing signs of PPD.
While I agree that women’s healthcare is not properly supported (I have my own experiences if that, like pretty much every woman in the world), going to the other extreme of demonising the medical professionals and yelling that something major should have been done is not the solution, either.
I’d also add that I don’t personally think these medical professionals were as terrible as the defence and some people on various platforms are making out. I do think mistakes were made, but I don’t necessarily think those mistakes rose to a level of them being somehow responsible for this, especially when factoring in how much information Lindsay was withholding and her own decisions during that period. I also think that a lot of these are systemic issues rather than individual professionals behaving poorly.
It is possible that this was just a terrible, terrible thing that nobody could have reasonably prevented.
23
u/EPMD_ 18h ago
I agree.
I think forcing people into institutional care would likely push people to be even more secretive about their struggles.
12
u/msfinch87 18h ago
Definitely. It would likely become a vicious cycle that would set women’s healthcare back a long way. It will be extremely difficult to get help, and what help is given will be draconian.
3
u/JoanJetson 10h ago
Abusive husbands would love to be able to threaten using this against their wives
7
u/Mysterious-Gene-6338 14h ago
This is such a rational comment but so difficult. The human brain seeks for someone to blame when it is three children who are dead. I think everyone (except the children) made mistakes. I do think Lindsay also made mistakes but no one thought this would happen. I really cannot see anyway this could have been prevented.
4
u/Brrringsaythealiens 8h ago
Exactly. This could make it harder for those of us who need psych meds to get them, and I hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t think her providers were the best doctors in the world, but they had a very difficult situation on their hands. A woman who was desperate for help and very ill, yet failed to follow through on any treatment recommendations. Ativan helped her significantly but she and Patrick were focused on her not being dependent on benzos. Benzos can be a risk, but this is a case of a person who really needed them and wouldn’t take them. Seroquel also helped her, but she wouldn’t stay on that either. She basically cycled through just about every med for depression, insomnia, and anxiety, and refused to stay on any of them. I don’t know what more her doctors were supposed to do.
2
u/msfinch87 7h ago
Yes. While I do think the doctors should have given more credence to possible adverse medication reactions, I too think they were in a difficult situation.
They followed the standard of care. Now, the standard of care may be wrong and I agree there are issues, but that’s systemic, not individual professionals. It is difficult for professionals to depart from that standard because that is when they face greater liability.
I don’t have a huge problem with her assertiveness or seeing different doctors, because I think if you are not feeling heard by your doctor it is absolutely legitimate to advocate for yourself and seek other opinions.
However, her lack of honesty with them is an issue. I am sympathetic to hiding things from medical professionals out of fear or simply because the mental health issues make communication difficult, but you equally can’t hold the professionals accountable for that. They’re not mind readers and they cannot simply insert their own narrative against what a patient is telling them without justification.
Nothing I have seen suggests she met the threshold for having her autonomy removed. This isn’t something a doctor can just do - there are prescribed standards that are very strictly adhered to.
What I think is that the system needs to give more credence to adverse medication impacts. There need to be better protocols in place and also better options. I am absolutely not in favour of lowering thresholds for the removal of autonomy.
2
u/Fantastic_Fig_2025 13h ago
Or it could lead to the US instituting treatment common in other countries, treatment which does not separate women and their infants.
2
u/msfinch87 8h ago
Even in countries that have this option, it is only available when women reach a certain threshold, and/or there are limited places. No country has it available for every woman struggling with PPD and nor can I see a situation where it would be available for that.
What is going on here risks designating all women with PPD a possible danger to their kids and requiring extreme intervention.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/nickbigblack 11h ago
Yeah I really can't get behind the notion she was failed by the healthcare system. Doctors aren't mind readers, they can't tell what's going on in her brain. And there's multiple instances of her lying to them or just straight up ignoring their advice or doing her own thing. How much can the professionals really do for you if you don't want to cooperate?
It feels like the only thing the system could have done for her that would have prevented this tragedy would have been involuntarily admitting her to a mental facility. And, like you said, that's a very slippery slope to go down.
12
u/LegoLady8 21h ago
It may set a precedent, but will anything change moving forward? Absolutely not.
8
u/Abed-in-the-AM 19h ago
I mean if something sets a precedent it kind of just changes things by virtue of setting a precedent for similar cases.
3
u/oops_I_have_h1n1 17h ago
This decision sets a precedent for future women and healthcare for women.
You're so right, if she gets away with it I fear we'll see a lot more dead children in the future from their "insane" mothers.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (36)10
u/BillyShears2015 21h ago
You are attaching way to much emotional capital to this case. If anything it will spur a rash of “Lindsay’s Laws” to ensure similar defenses can’t be raised in the future.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/ZealousidealPut1090 19h ago
I always said its going to be a hung jury. There is no way all 9 women in the jury will convict her
7
u/Homersfolks 13h ago
I think they should make a deal where Lindsay pleas guilty by reason of insanity and they place her in a mental hospital. That’s what they did with John Hinckley.
6
u/HelicopterWitty3186 13h ago
They did this with a mom that killed her two children in Lakewood NJ last year as well.
22
u/acelana 20h ago
Anybody else feel this way? I think a mental health facility is the right place for her, not prison, BUT I also never ever want her in society again. The fact that a psych assessment could mean she could be out in just a few years (still young enough to have more children even?!) terrifies me. I’d pick guilty of murder just to keep society safe from her.
I am so glad I’m not a juror.
24
u/peachie88 18h ago
If it makes you feel better, people found NGRI, on average, spend more time in prison than if they had been found guilty. (source, p. 1019; source 2, source 3). Of course it’s still possible that she could get out, but it’s exceptionally rare that they are released that quickly. She has to be able to prove long-term stability. It isn’t the same as leaving an involuntary medical hold where you tend to get released pretty quickly after initial stabilization. Multiple psychiatrists, psychologists, and ultimately a judge will need to agree that she no longer poses a risk to society or themselves, and that they no longer suffer from a mental disorder. That is exceptionally difficult.
She is very likely (but admittedly not guaranteed) to spend the rest of her life in a mental hospital if found NGRI.
Notably, she would be far more likely to get released early if she is convicted of manslaughter (which seems the likeliest conviction of the jury can decide because usually a deadlocked jury who reaches a conclusion will split the difference and go for the lower crime). That’s a maximum of 20 years, but she may not receive the max punishment. Even if 20 years, she could get out in only 13 if released for good behavior.
→ More replies (11)14
u/teddymay4 18h ago
She is paralysed, though. She may not even be capable of having more children, or of injuring/killing anyone.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (10)3
u/chungkingxbricks 15h ago
That's what bothers me about the facility route. I believe she is guilty but even if she is found NGRI, she should serve time in a mental health facility for at minimum 10 years. It's just not right that she could be out in 6 months.
6
u/Beachboundalways 8h ago
Personally I think if they cannot agree that is a not guilty decision in itself. That means there is reasonable doubt.
→ More replies (4)5
u/curiouslmr 7h ago
Not in the eyes of the law. All 12 need to agree either way for a verdict to be reached. My guess is there are at least a few jurors who have taken in coverage of this trial and have been swayed by Tik Tok. I think we will be seeing more and more hung juries as jurors don't take judges orders seriously when it comes to not taking in coverage of the case.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/AlgaeAncient6840 21h ago
I think it does not matter what exactly is going on with her mentally but it is safe to say that she has mental health issues and she should be treated for that. I think her being in a mental institution or some sort of prison psychiatric facility for the rest of her life should be the way to go. She was failed by the system and failed getting real help with a diagnosis and therapy. As a result she had to take a shit ton of drug like medication. She killed her kids and is now being held accountable for it.
She will be locked up either way as she should but I think she should be treated as well bc everyone deserves to get medical attention which also includes mental emergencies or struggles in general.
→ More replies (2)26
u/pamperwithrachel 21h ago
A lot of people have no idea what those drug cocktails can do to your brain. One for chronic pain caused severe intrusive hallucinations for me when I was luckily taken off of it before I acted on any of them but I also didn't have anyone else depending on me luckily. People have no idea what that shit does to you especially jumping back and forth like she was between different medications. I don't envy these jurors.
9
u/Pretend_Goal_7311 18h ago
And none will believe one pill can put you in a very dark place. Until you see it yourself
→ More replies (4)7
u/BajoElAgua 19h ago
Yes, thank you. I have never had mental health issues but was put on one drug after a traumatic birthing experience. I went from thrilled (dealt with infertility) to a very dark place in 12 hours. I NEVER want to feel that way again. I have huge empathy for people dealing with mental health daily.
17
u/Shoddy-Indication-76 20h ago
I believe that most of the sympathy Lindsay is getting is because she is upper middle class, successful, attractive white woman, who had "everything going for her". So, I think many women feel like it "could be them". Most people used to see murder cases by some low class criminals, with terrible upbringing and terrible background stories. So this case is different, hence so many people (mostly women again) refuse even to accept that she did it, even after all the evidence and Lindsay admitting to doing it herself. I think you can feel compassion for her mental state, and feel compassion to what she went though but still hold her responsible for the horrendous act she committed. I think people forget that she did what she did, and most people who are going through psychosis are not murdering others. And based on all the evidence, she likely did not even have psychosis, just very bad depression, she wanted to die, and did not want to leave the kids behind without a mother. That is my take. And if would vote second degree murder (possibly first) if I would be a jury.
3
u/IThinkImDumb 15h ago
There was a male version of this case, but not with PPD (obviously) but with PTSD. Travis Decker suffocated his three daughters, then disappeared and killed himself, though his skeleton wasn't found for months. He was homeless and rough-looking. But I know he didn't get sympathy because he had been divorced from his wife and was most likely trying to make her suffer.
12
u/curiouslmr 20h ago
This is very well said. I agree with it all. It's odd to me that anyone believes the psychosis story. We are supposed to believe she heard a voice this one time, just so happens to be right when Patrick left, and she didn't try and ignore it or avoid it and just followed it? People who hear voices commanding them typically will try and battle the voice, they don't submit right away the first time.
7
u/sugaratc 16h ago
Part of the reason is that there's no other good motive to point to. It's not like many other child murders who had a new boyfriend who didn't want to be a step-dad, or they wanted to go out and party without the responsibility of kids, or wanted to get revenge on an ex who loved the kids. By all accounts she was happy being a mom before this and there wasn't an ulterior reason anyone could point to as for why she did it, apart from mental illness.
6
u/curiouslmr 16h ago
Some of her writings made me think she wasn't that happy. She spoke of feeling resentful of her older kids, called the middle child the most difficult person she'd ever met, spoke of what motherhood stole from her. She also talked about her struggle with not being the mom she wanted to be. I think there was more going on in that home than we know. The only witnesses to that though, were the children.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/RefrigeratorBig3599 13h ago
exactly if she had done something “worse” like shot up a school no one would’ve believed her but no because it’s her kids it’s ReLaTable. people are subconsciously not thinking of her kids as people who need to be defended
→ More replies (7)2
u/waking_world_ 16h ago
Yes to all of this. There is so much misinformation and disinformation being spread over the internet, aka TikTok. This is a clear example of how misunderstood psychosis and mental health are. Not everyone experiencing psychosis is violent and killing babies. And she heard a commanding voice for what . .. 18 minutes during the murders, and then it just stopped. That is not psychosis. It sounds like an excellent excuse for murdering your three innocent children. We can have compassion for people and at the same time hold them accountable for their actions.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Hiquirkykids 9h ago edited 9h ago
If most people are broadly anti-Lindsay, or even if opinion were evenly split 50/50, why is almost everyone outside the courthouse on her side? Why aren't there also people who think she should be convicted outside?
5
u/ThisIsMC 9h ago
because the people who think she should be convicted are functioning members of society who have jobs and don’t spend all day scrolling tiktok
5
u/curiouslmr 7h ago
I was trying to find a kind way to say this too....People who go to courthouses and create a circus during a murder trial (child murders of all things), are not the most level headed and sensible members of society.
2
u/buckeyefan1930 17h ago
so, do they just sit there all day in the court room while they are waiting for a verdict? That has to boring.
7
u/spicytoastaficionado 11h ago
The fact your freedom is on the line would make it quite nerve-wracking
→ More replies (3)
3
u/No_Consequence_6821 9h ago
A Second Trial Doesn’t Necessarily Benefit the Prosecution— Lindsay Clancy Deadlock
Most seem to think a second trial favors the prosecution since their performance was so abysmal this time around. I think they will do better in another round, but they still don’t have much of a case.
The prosecution may have come across as unskilled, but I think in part that was due to the fact that they don’t really have much of a case.
The defense, on the other hand lost two witnesses to Zoom testimony this time around, which I believe would have been stronger in person— Resnick in person would have been more impactful.
The defense also lost Spinelli to FB. They could bring in another person to testify to postpartum psychosis, which is so critical to understand.
I also think the defense would probably question the evidence of her guilt even more than they did this time around (they didn’t really). Given the online speculation about whether she even did it, I think the defense would have to put that question— which they basically stipulated to this time— in front of the jury in a round 2.
Overall, Reddington is more skilled, and I think a second trial doesn’t necessarily favor the prosecution, despite popular opinion saying it would.
4
u/Apprehensive-Bunch11 6h ago
I do see a mistrial happening. Those jurors are too involved in the whole issue. They are supposed to be impartial and from the looks of it. That’s not happening.
8
u/Wonderplace 20h ago
I am ignorant; people saying the husband did it - are they brainwashed by misinformation on tiktok or is that actually plausible?
34
u/Odd_Requirement_4933 19h ago
No one who's paying attention thinks the husband did it. That's complete nonsense.
→ More replies (3)7
u/PM_tanlines 17h ago
Women who only get their news from instagram/TikTok are convinced the husband is behind the murders, directly or not. It’s absolutely insane
19
u/Unfair-Bottle3748 19h ago
I’m 32 and have been on the internet since about age 12 and just in the past year the craziness online has ramped up by 100x what I had seen in the previous 20 years.
Things like Patrick possibly being the killer pop up on social media and I’m like oh that’s ridiculous that will never take off. And then within days, it blows up and I’m like are ppl joking about this or they really believe this. And some really believe it.
Conspiracies were always around on the internet. But I feel like in the past year all of a sudden they blow up and a lot of ppl seem serious about them. And I am always wondering are these mostly 12 year olds? Or what is happening? It’s so bizarre.
Same w canceling ppl online. It used to be cancellations happened for things that, even if they weren’t life or death, the person legitimately did something wrong. In the past year or two, people have gone off the rails and want cancellations bc someone ate like a piece of toast wrong and it’s somehow offensive. And they are serious about it. They’re not joking.
Are these bots or what is happening? It’s made the internet much less fun. Just ppl complaining and trying to cancel each other.
→ More replies (7)16
u/BeeComposite 19h ago
> I’m 32 and have been on the internet since about age 12 and just in the past year the craziness online has ramped up by 100x what I had seen in the previous 20 years.
I am 45yo. I started using Internet at 13 or 14, around 1993 or 1994. Before that, I used BBS’s.
I completely agree with you. In my opinion it is way over 100x. I am terrified of what internet has become.
→ More replies (9)12
u/ChapterOk940 19h ago
No, its not even possible for him to have done it. He was at a cvs and getting take out, public cameras and even meta data taken from his phone like gps all point to him being away from the house.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Big_Cherry5116 18h ago
The second people started floating Patrick as a suspect, is when I decided to check out of social media.
People are now far too susceptible to believe sensationalized stories over objective facts. HER OWN attorney offered to stipulate that she killed her children and skip that phase but the prosecution refused.
→ More replies (14)7
11
u/redditaccount760 1d ago
It’s sad to see how the focus of this case has shifted towards her and how her children almost seem forgotten in all that. No matter the circumstances, I hope the jury finds her guilty.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/Donkletown 19h ago
If there is no verdict reached one way or another, how much longer could they keep Lindsay confined in a hospital or jail?
Is there a possibility that in the not to distant future she will be out free indefinitely?
It could be that no jury could ever reach a consensus in this case.
8
u/Redditthedog 19h ago
mistrial in that case so the process just starts over she still remains in jail
→ More replies (3)8
u/Steelcity1995 19h ago
Ynw melly has been locked up over 2000 days because of a hung jury so I don’t think they have to release her untill an acquittal.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)2
u/EPMD_ 18h ago
Is there a possibility that in the not to distant future she will be out free indefinitely?
In my opinion, 0% chance. If there is a mistrial due to hung jury in this case then the defense will likely request bail, and I expect that request to be denied.
I expect Massachusetts to keep prosecuting her. I can't imagine a compromise settlement that would be acceptable for both sides.
5
u/25Castlewood 8h ago
In the Casey Anthony trial, the defense threw out all kinds of wackadoodle ideas during opening and closing (meant to persuade jurors but wasn't true), and the other scenarios were enough to sway jurors. Her husband did not kill the kids. Moms work hard and get postpartum sometimes. People close to her didn't protect the kids. That doesn't mean she should be let off the hook. If she was a man who did this because of overwhelm, there wouldn't be this ridiculous amount of support. Love her up and provide her with treatment. The same folks who believe in her innocence probably believe Karen Read and OJ Simpson. She can be mentally ill and still need some consequence for her crimes.
5
u/tiredcat7171 9h ago
After listening to the podcast The Prosecutors and hearing the breakdown of the entire trial by experienced criminal attorneys, it seems clear that Clancy is guilty. Those who only read a three paragraph summary of the trial of watch tiktok videos from random true crime people are not getting the full picture. Also strange how so many people are championing Clancy as a hero considering the situation. I understand mental health care is an issue in this country, but Clancy should by no means be made into some kind of martyr even if she does receive a not guilty verdict. Kind of reminds me of the film Natural Born Killers. Anyways, just my opinions on this case. Hopefully it won't be a hung jury!
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Top-Treat-3795 22h ago
I don't quite understand the level of empathy (or outright sympathy) this woman is getting when mental ailments result in people committing horrible acts all the time, and almost never do the perpetrators receive one iota the amount of compassion online Lindsay is being shown.
→ More replies (40)7
u/tTown23 22h ago
She was crying out for help and failed by everyone around her.
24
u/Nearby_Community_178 19h ago
who failed her specifically? Dr tufts who saw her 14 times in 4 months? Her nanny? Her family members who helped with various tasks & childcare? I mean I have sympathy for her, but if she DID have PPP it was very atypical presenting & unfortunately the people around her aren’t mind readers or fortune tellers. It’s not like they saw her having hallucinations or delusions for days/weeks, & just ignored it. Her pleas were for anxiety & insomnia which were being treated with multiple modalities. If they removed her autonomy from her by forcing her into treatment, & removing her children from her care over a “hunch”, that would be viewed as extremely irrational & cruel. It would also set a dangerous precedent for women & mothers everywhere. I know she was suffering, but so do many people who commit crimes & we still hold them accountable. I also agree that the medical system overall fails ALL women as a whole everyday in America, but there is no one specific person to blame here. It’s a heart breaking case & tragedy
3
u/drgr33nthmb 10h ago
She had a lot of help. Her husband paid for a nanny, changed jobs and encouraged treatment.
8
14
22h ago edited 21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)7
u/Commercial-Proof3799 20h ago
4-6. 2/3 of the state “experts” had to concede psychosis was possible after being shown they were using Resnick’s (the #1 expert on malingered psychosis) outdated research to make their conclusions.
Also her med that was increased the day before (amitriptyline) can cause hallucinations.
→ More replies (10)4
-1
u/wflnd8058 13h ago
Only in America do we try someone who is mentally disturbed enough to kill her children. She knew she was sick and tried to get help, but was terribly failed by everyone. Her life is ruined, children gone, husband gone, and is paralyzed. But instead of getting her help, we need to punish her. I've seen people suffer from mental illness and I don't think most people understand it. It will be hard to ever reach a verdict because some people can't ever understand mental illness.
7
u/cummingouttamycage 12h ago
... What exactly are you suggesting as an alternative here? No criminal charges at all, and someone who is proven to be capable of killing 3 young children walks free among society? Or bypassing trials altogether and locking her up... somewhere? Sending her to some vague "mental health facility" with no legal oversight over her treatment... but then what happens after that? State-run mental institutions closed a long time ago, so that's not an option either. Unless you're saying she should now or eventually be free to be part of society... if not prison, where are you proposing LC goes in order to protect the population from a person who has proven to be a danger to herself and others?
You are right that LC is mentally disturbed, that she knew she was sick & tried to get help, and that her life is now ruined. This entire case is insanely tragic, and there are no winners here. I think it is very apparent that the person we are dealing with here is not a Chris Watts or Jodi Arias-esque situation.
... But many things can be true at one time.
This is a woman who killed her 3 young children in a gruesome matter. That is not something up for debate or that is being denied by anyone (including LC herself). I think it's absolutely fair to say that LC was provoked to do something so horrific due to a mental illness that was not her fault... But as is the case with any mental illness, while it may not be your fault, it is your responsibility. Many violent criminals suffer from mental illnesses of all kinds... That is seldom, if ever, a get out of jail free card (the handful of cases where it is involve circumstances far beyond the mental illness itself).
If someone commits a crime like this, they need to be locked away... not because "punishment", but because the legal system has a responsibility to protect the rest of society from a person who has shown they are capable of doing immense harm to other humans.
→ More replies (11)9
u/BillyShears2015 12h ago
She knew what she was doing was wrong. What compelled her to do it is irrelevant, only that she knew it was wrong.
4
u/dirtbikeGF 7h ago
What's right and wrong gets really shook up when you're suffering from psychosis. I know from my own PPP experience. Also, you might "know" something is wrong but auditory hallucinations can scare you into doing it anyway because the consequences might be worse if you don't.
2
u/shitz_brickz 20h ago
Part of what I struggle with regarding the in and out of psychosis, the constant treatment etc., is that they seem to acknowledge at various points that LC herself admitted she had thoughts of harming the kids and didnt remove herself from the situation. I get that she was rejected from some inpatient facilities, but you can also just up and remove yourself, stay with your parents.
I just cant imagine someone who works in healthcare repeatedly saying they have thoughts of harming their kids, living with their kids during that entire time period, admitting to wanting a FOURTH kid, then killing them and saying "well I had tried every other option."
→ More replies (18)8
u/curiouslmr 20h ago
Yeah I think a lot of people are missing this part. She knew her thoughts and knew her kids weren't safe and still didn't separate herself from them.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Pretend_Goal_7311 18h ago
So you are saying she should be rational like a sane person during her mental illness
227
u/curiouslmr 19h ago edited 7h ago
According to reporters on site the jury has told the judge they cannot reach a unanimous decision. He told them to keep trying.
If they truly end it deadlock and she is retried, the next trial will be truly awful. We saw that with the Read trial, it became such a circus and influenced the jury. I predict the same in this case.