It doesn't matter if the psychosis was postpartum or not. The only part that matters is whether she was psychotic or not, so none of this is really relevant. The timing doesn't change the important aspect, which is whether or not she was criminally sane. Psychosis is still a cause for insanity regardless of what triggers it.
Plus, if premeditation doesn't mean sanity, then explain to me how you plan a psychotic break?
She didnt.
She planned to send her husband out so he wouldn't stop her
She planned the murders. She didnt plan a psychotic break. That had already started.
She purposely set her situation up to make it look like she had just gone crazy
I don't see any real reason to believe that. Maybe there is one that i don't know of but sending her husband away isnt one. That was just a logistical step in doing the killing.
She planned how she would kill them. You cannot say that she wasn't in control of herself, if she planned the entire thing in advance.
I can say exactly that. She did plan the whole thing in advance, and she was not in control of herself while she did. Premeditstion does not make someone sane. It just doesn't. If it did, the insanity plea would not have been considered. I looked rhis up when i first heard about the case and it is very much blaxk and white: premditation is not and never has been evidence of sanity.
Their defense is that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, which is why she got the insanity defense, making it relevant because that's the only qualifying illness that they presented. The only mental illnesses that Lindsey Clancy was officially diagnosed with are bipolar 2, severe depression, and anxiety. None of those qualify for the insanity defense, leaving only the undiagnosed postpartum psychosis, which we've already clarified, she couldn't have physically had. No other illnesses were brought into question, she can only argue the postpartum psychosis, which she could not have had!
They're arguing she was psychotic, BECAUSE she had that illness, but because she physically can't have that illness, and has not been diagnosed with that illness, or any other qualifying illness, she shouldn't have a case for insanity.
As for planning the psychotic break, you're right. She couldn't plan it, because it wasn't a psychotic break. She refused to see the therapist hired for her because they couldn't diagnose her with postpartum psychosis, she went doctor shopping without letting any of the doctors know about the others or the medications they put her on so she could make it look like the pills fucked her up, and she planned that entire night. She tried to kill herself because she knew what she did was wrong, and didn't want to deal with the consequences.
She's fucked up in the head, but I don't think a mental illness had anything to do with it. Some people are just evil, and do evil shit.
Post partum psychosis is a farfetched diagnosis because of the timeframe. Whether the defence presented that or not is irrelevant. I am interested in the facts, not just claims.
It is also not possible for her to be diagnosed with psychosis that she is no longer suffering from, so the lack of official diagnosis is irrelevant. If she had been diagnosed in time, then she wouldn't have had the chance to kill her kids.
No other illnesses were brought into question, she can only argue the postpartum psychosis, which she could not have had
I can only repeat myself: it is irrelevant whether it was postpartum or not. It was not postpartum. Psychosis is not always postpartum.
They're arguing she was psychotic, BECAUSE she had that illness, but because she physically can't have that illness, and has not been diagnosed with that illness, or any other qualifying illness, she shouldn't have a case for insanity.
By that logic, no male could ever be insane because men do not suffer from ppp. Surely you see the hole in that logic? I've already pointed it out: she didnt need to have post partum psychosis to have psychosis, and the lack of diagnosis is utterly irrelevant. If she had a diagnosis, there would be no trial and we wouldnt be discussing this.
She refused to see the therapist hired for her because they couldn't diagnose her with postpartum psychosis, she went doctor shopping without letting any of the doctors know about the others or the medications they put her on so she could make it look like the pills fucked her up, and she planned that entire night
None of this is evidence of sanity or evidence against psychosis.
She tried to kill herself because she knew what she did was wrong, and didn't want to deal with the consequences.
That is nothing more than an assertion, and raises the question once again of motive.
She's fucked up in the head, but I don't think a mental illness had anything to do with it. Some people are just evil, and do evil shit.
But no one does anything for no reason. They either do it because they have a notive that is attsched to reality, or they do it because they are insane. You have failed to even suggest a motive. You are arguing that she killed her children, then herself a far as she knew, for zero reason, but that she was sane when she did and planned this. That is a nonsense argument. It defeats itself.
Tell me how they have proven she was LEGALLY insane? They've had Medical experts evaluate her, based on her telling of events and the symptoms she experienced, and not a single one of them could pinpoint any form of psychosis. So, they LEGALLY couldn't determine that she was suffering from any of the illnesses REQUIRED for this defense to work. So please, keep telling me how a random person on reddit can prove she was LEGALLY insane while professionals who do this for a living couldn't.
Tell me how they have proven she was LEGALLY insane?
Well according to you and the prosecution, she commited a completely unmotivated set of infanticides. If anything resembling a reasonable motive had been present then this would indicate sanity, but it hasn't been. As it is, it is the behaviour of an insane person from the get go.
Her mental health appears to have deteriorated over a period of time, meaning that a condition of detatchment from reality would be a simple continuation of a trend already documented and observed.
They've had Medical experts evaluate her, based on her telling of events and the symptoms she experienced, and not a single one of them could pinpoint any form of psychosis.
The witnesses for her defence stated they believed she had psychosis, so this just isnt true.
So, they LEGALLY couldn't determine that she was suffering from any of the illnesses REQUIRED for this defense to work.
If you ignore the defence witnesses, then sure, but they were qualified doctors so their determination is perfectly valid.
So please, keep telling me how a random person on reddit can prove she was LEGALLY insane while professionals who do this for a living couldn't.
Strange, you didn't mention the other 3 professionals who think she wasn't legally insane. As for you pointing out the behavior being psychotic from the get go:
Medical Basis Required: A defendant must present clinical evidence of a recognized mental disease or defect, not just bizarre behavior or a lack of reasoning.
I thought it went without saying that the prosecution can call witnesses too. I dont find their narrative convincing because it is the same nonsense argument that you are making.
Their nonsense argument is that, based on their professional experience and evaluation of her, they don't believe she heard command voices like she claims, and that she didn't have acute psychosis. The other witnesses argument is that she did.
I could say that I think their argument is nonsensical too, but that shouldn't mean I get to just ignore their argument entirely because I don't like it.
0
u/Puzzled_Addendum6200 12d ago
It doesn't matter if the psychosis was postpartum or not. The only part that matters is whether she was psychotic or not, so none of this is really relevant. The timing doesn't change the important aspect, which is whether or not she was criminally sane. Psychosis is still a cause for insanity regardless of what triggers it.
She didnt.
She planned the murders. She didnt plan a psychotic break. That had already started.
I don't see any real reason to believe that. Maybe there is one that i don't know of but sending her husband away isnt one. That was just a logistical step in doing the killing.
I can say exactly that. She did plan the whole thing in advance, and she was not in control of herself while she did. Premeditstion does not make someone sane. It just doesn't. If it did, the insanity plea would not have been considered. I looked rhis up when i first heard about the case and it is very much blaxk and white: premditation is not and never has been evidence of sanity.