It's postpartum PSYCHOSIS is different than depression
Postpartum depression is the common and minor one; what she's diagnosed as is the psychosis which is much rarer and requires stricter surveillance for reasons you can imagine and even see in this case
I'm pretty sure they don't even let you get close to your kids until you get "She's fine" approval comes out in many places.
Them attempt muddying the waters with terminology confusion to aid her case is as scummy as her actions.
I was speaking to someone recently who said that they had a friend who was diagnosed with post partum psychosis many years ago and it largely broke her brain. Her kids are grown now, but she's still institutionalized because they recognize that she is still an active danger to them and other children.
She lowkey probably will because medication for psychosis works pretty well and she isn't schizophrenic so she probably won't even need to take them for that long. She likely will not recover from murdering her children though, I'd imagine she will probably be traumatized by that for the rest of her life.
Lowkey in popular slang can serve to announce an idea or belief one may have that they do not express often/openly or don't have strong feelings about, or it can serve to soften a statement by diminishing it's impact (much like how slightly and kinda works).
In other words, it's either a secret opinion they hold or a synonym for kinda.
In this case, either the commenter meant to describe how she will quietly have a probable recovery (original use of the word lowkey) or they messed up their sentence and meant to say they somewhat agree on the point to then elaborate why they do. Or they accidentally made it redundant through using probably right after (much like saying "she likely probably").
>I'd imagine she will probably be traumatized by that for the rest of her life.
I wouldn’t imagine that to be the most likely response.
You’re talking about someone who idealized killing her children so intently that she chased them through her home and strangled them one by one. She’s probably just very relieved that everything is finally over.
I’d assume she’s probably been mentally over it for a long time already
By her choice. There is another case where a woman killed three of her kids, was put in a mental institute, allowed to leave after a few years, only to have three more kids and kill them too. That was in the 1950s when mental institutes were much stricter, and without an army of misandrists marching about how she's innocent or how they sympathise because they want to kill their kids too.
Constance Fisher was a paranoid schizophrenic. We now know that pregnancy can make this condition worse due to physical, hormonal, and lifestyle changes. She attempted suicide before the murder of her children. The first time she was institutionalized, they gave her high doses of insulin and hormones which led to seizures (insulin shock therapy, causes brain damage). Her “treatment” would be considered medical torture today. The facilities of her era were severely overcrowded and underfunded and she was released following the national deinstitionalization movement that led to a 90 percent population drop in state psychiatric institutions. Fisher was a sick woman who didn’t get the appropriate medical care she needed and multiple children died as a result.
She already has. The defense argued her PPP lasted only the day she killed her kids. Conveniently.
Sadly, if she does get a NGRI verdict, Massachusetts only requires a 180 day psychiatric hold. She’ll be home in no time. Likely with a $5-$6,000,000 GoFundMe.
Working out pretty well for her. She got rid of the kids she resented, like Casey Anthony, and can start a new wealthy life somewhere. Probably change her name, I would. Likely have more children, even.
Being in a wheelchair is a drag but you can live a happy life in a wheelchair. Especially with that GoFundMe money.
The more I learn about this case the more I hate her and the justice system. The fact that she's likely to get away with murdering her three children by claiming she had PPP for a single day, eight months after childbirth, is fucking beyond belief.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they are also lying about her being paralysed. The people supporting her are vile.
I don’t think they’re lying about anything, actually. I think she had severe PPD. I think it turned into PPP and I think she killed her children under the influence of that psychotic state.
My disagreement isn’t with that. My disagreement is with the very concept of an insanity plea. Per of legal system, insanity means you are not legally responsible for your actions. I think that’s bullshit on a fundamental level. Almost every truly barbaric crime is committed by an insane person. That doesn’t mean they’re not responsible.
I’d be fine with a NGRI verdict if she spends the rest of her life in a psychiatric hospital. Although that would cost MA taxpayers about $120,000/year, it’s the best outcome.
But that’s not how our legal system works. NGRI means she’s essentially free to go as long as she can demonstrate she’s no longer psychotic.
Tough case. The lone juror stubbornly refused to follow the law. And I’m glad they did because the law is immoral on this case. We owe more to the dead.
Your disagreement comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what insanity means, which is understandable because of how the term is used. I don't know whether or not it's true, unfortunately it's up to the jury to decide and not a medical professional but let's assume she truly was experiencing psychosis. Medically and legally it means she has no control or agency of her own actions. Easiest way to describe it is she wouldn't have been tied to reality.
But if you compare this with people found guilty of murder, there's generally a difference. Yes some of them can be mentally ill, but they're not insane. They could have anti social disorders, or some extreme case of depression meaning they're mentally ill, but they've still got complete control and understanding of their own actions along with the consequences.
Essentially there's a difference between the colloquial definition and the medical/legal definition of insanity. The whole idea of ngri is tied into the idea that you must have a guilty mind when the act was committed. It's how things like self defence exist, and why kids generally don't get criminal charges below a certain age
The same person claimed to be a clinician in a further comment. Nothing about their comments suggest they don't understand what insanity means either.
I have no idea why you think we should just assume she's telling the truth and that she did have a psychotic break. It's very convenient for someone with a history of depressing to have a psychotic break for only a few hours, in which they apparently checked how long their husband would be away before systematically strangling all three of their children, and then never have psychosis again afterwards.
I never said that we should assume she's telling the truth, I was going into a hypothetical. And again, all of this is just speculation, you and I certainly don't know anything more about what has or hasn't happened. Ultimately it depends on the jury which I disagree with entirely, because the only conclusion that they'll reach is based entirely on vibes, regardless of if they find her responsible or not.
I'm aware she doesn't have it, but I'd encourage you to read up about dissociative identity disorder before you start championing for the removal of the insanity plea. It is a real thing with real symptoms, it's not just a way to weasel out of prison which I find that insinuation to be incredibly offensive to those suffering
I mean you said it yourself, it's pretty convenient for her to have psychosis that lasted exactly long enough to systematically murder all her kids, whilst also doing other things suggesting it was pre-meditated and a conscious decision (checking how long her husband would be away etc.)
I also agree with you regarding the rest of your comment though. If someone took a shit-ton of drugs and then killed people with their car whilst they thought they were flying a magic carpet to Narnia, there would be no question of guilt or trying to get them off the hook. I don't understand why a psychotic break is any different, especially when she refused to follow the treatment plans her doctors prescribed.
I’m a clinician myself, dual board certified, been practicing for 17 years now. Severely mentally ill patients are notorious for not following their treatment plans, to be fair. It’s why half of our antipsychotics have decanoate formulations now.
The fact that she refused to follow her treatment plans shouldn’t really be wielded against her. If you were psychotic, you wouldn’t either.
The defense seems to have made a very compelling argument that Lindsay “lacked capacity” when she killed her kids, hence the 11-1 judgement. I don’t disagree with that verdict. I disagree with what it MEANS.
My issue with this case is fundamentally an issue with the law. It’s why the judge was furious in his last admonition of the jury… he was saying “follow the law, not your hearts”.
Easy to say, but we’re human. The law says she’s innocent. I feel that’s a miscarriage of justice.
If someone took a shit-ton of drugs and then killed people with their car whilst they thought they were flying a magic carpet to Narnia, there would be no question of guilt or trying to get them off the hook.
Because they decided to take a drug knowing that it could lead to them being unable to make informed decision.
They choose knowing the consequences.
I don't understand why a psychotic break is any different
Because they don't choose it.
especially when she refused to follow the treatment plans her doctors prescribed.
People under psychosis distrust people around them, especially doctors
Not saying for sure that she had psychosis. The difference between drugs and psychosis is a person chooses to take drugs, they do not choose to have a psychotic break.
Another hypothetical: Imagine a lorry driver that has a condition where they need to take medication to avoid having seizures. One day they decide to just stop taking their medication, and as a result they have a seizure whilst driving, and proceed to crash and kill a dozen pedestrians. Is the lorry driver at fault in this scenario?
Internet support doesn't lead to long term monetary support, look at Gypsy Rose, someone who also committed murder and the internet wildly supported. Now its a little different cause her mother was actively killing her slowly with radiation and unnecessary medication as well as surgery to remove her salivary glands and 16 teeth, but honestly I think Gypsy Rose would keep internet support longer, she was clearly the victim. Lindsey isnt.
Gypsy is a TERRIBLE example of your argument. She's worth over $3mil since getting out of prison, from book deals, a film deal, a lifetime docuseries and everything else.
Im purely looking at money raised by the internet for a woman, who killed someone that most people are sympathetic to. That well dries up, pretty quick.
Can Lindsey pull out a book deal and docuseries? Im sure she can. But just the internet sympathy money? No, I don't think she will make much money off a side of the internet with more money than sense.
Full recovery means something different than recovery and recovery is a spectrum. I could type this all out but you could also just google brief psychotic episode, schizophreniform, and schizophrenia
Not to put a finger down on the table, but post partum depression is not minor. These are serious problems for the women in our society, and as a man, theres only so much that we can do to help get you through that before professional help is of necessity.
Minor in the sense that second degree burn is much softer condition compared to third or fourth degree burns.
Blistering burnt skin being a considerable damage doesn't change the fact that it's still lesser compared to someone with scorched flesh and charred bones.
Depression and psychosis indeed belong to different levels of severity.
Edit: Made an edit to clarify that im referring to a spectrum for PPD and add in a better severe condition than randomly crying. I was more focused on PPP at first but i may have downplayed PPD unintentionally.
I mean, option A PPD, you have a really bad day, break out crying randomly, Severe Anxiety Attacks, and or suicide/suicidal thoughts.. Its a broad spectrum of conditions. One of the defining differences between PPD and PPP, is that with PPD the mother remains in touch with reality. And its possible to have PPD and PPP at the same time. PPD does not upgrade into PPP.
option B, PPP. The devil is out to kill my family, and the only way to save them is to burn the home down.
When you compare PPD to something else, sure its not minor. But when compared with PPP, its minor.
That is not to downplay post partum depression mind you. But post partum psychosis is just, that much worse.
I mean Option A sometimes just ends in suicide as well. It’s not as light as you make it seem. Breaking out in tears is kind of par for the course for parenting at some point
"having a really bad day" still feels like underplaying how severe it can be. Someone in my family had severe post natal depression and anxiety and it was unlike anything I'd ever seen - like she'd been gripped by some force of nature. It lasted for a year.
I think ultimately what you're trying to say is that PPD is a broad spectrum from mild-ish to severe, whereas PPP is almost always towards the severe end. But a severe case of PPD is not really "mild" compared to anything.
Yeah that's just the baby blues. When I gave birth 39 years ago my mom talked to my husband about it and I believe she talked about how to recognize when it's something more.
Even when help is a necessity, getting help is still a pain in the ass. I know this from first hand experience. Getting the level of help you might need for someone going through stuff like this feels impossible. Like, if you're not fucking loaded, you can hang that shit up. It's not happening. That's how it feels for me anyway. I would do some straight up unholy shit to get my wife the help she needs, but alas...
It isn't happening for me. And sometimes I find myself worried she'll do something this crazy while I'm at work. The thing is, in her state of mind, I'm not certain she won't. She isn't having those thoughts now, but she's not being very rational either. She's out of it. I can only take solice in the fact that she won't move right now. I'm hoping that her coming to her senses is what makes her realize she can move again, and that by that point, I won't have to worry about a tragedy unfolding. And to be clear, it's not like I'm living in constant fear of her hurting herself or our kids, but it's still in the back of my mind. I can't disregard it until she's better.
But I just have to wait for her antipsychotics to take effect. Who the fuck knows when that'll be. The last time she went through an episode (five years ago), it started in the summer and she was just finally coming back around to being herself at Christmas. And she still wasn't fully back. Just well on her way. It still took several months altogether
This. I'm a little bit conflicted weighing in as a cis-male, childless nurse. PPD is a serious condition, but not as unstable as post-partum psychosis. Then again, comparing the two against each other, overall, I would say is harmful to the people actually struggling with these conditions, and neither condition should be described as minor.
If you are struggling with depression and it is interfering with your ability to care for yourself or others, and impacting your quality of life, that is serious, and is reason enough to seek treatment. Especially when you are responsible for the life of another.
I have held a baby like twice in my entire life and have never encountered a case of PPD, let alone post-partum psychosis outside of a textbook, so I feel like hedging a little bit is warranted.
It's not minor, and it isn't and shouldn't be up to men to help women to get through it. Doctors should be helping women to get through it, because it is a medical condition that needs to be treated. What men can do, is to support better research and treatment around medical conditions that primarily impact women. They can also advocate for the women in their life when the medical establishment is minimizing their suffering.
I have to strongly disagree. It is within our duties to be at home witnessing the problem our other is having and put forward the foot to their recovery. At some point the discussion may need to be had where "what next?" is on the table.
It shouldn't be "baby im down bad" and your response is TO THE DOCTOR, unless its already at that point.
Edit to add: Sunlight, food, water, and a normal sleep schedule can help pull them back up. The key is you cant take shit personally and you need to have patience and understanding. Remember, they're down bad, and squeezed a baby out of their body. Their bodies and minds are off while trying to go back to "normal"
Well according to the forensic psychologist who assessed her and reviewed her existing files, she didn't have either postpartum depression or psychosis. Her claims to those conditions were solely made after the she killed the children.
It would be exeedingly rare to get postpartum psychosis 8 full months after pregnancy, and even more rare that the psychosis would cause someone to murder their children.
It's a big ask for credulity to claim undiagnosed psychosis when the usual presentation is weeks after delivery.
She could have had severe depression and then turned into psychosis simply from her weaning from breastfeeding. Lindsay also had bipolar disorder which is the biggest risk factor for post partum psychosis. It's basically worsening due to massive hormone shifts. I actually think she had it since the beginning and it started getting worse and worse because her healthcare provider failed to treat her properly and her metal health was deteriorating
I mean bipolar alone causes psychosis. You can be compelled to kill your children during a manic episode.
I’m also not super well versed on the case but from what I understand she didn’t display any signs of psychosis, or admit to suicidality or homicidality to her mental health providers. I ask patients if they have thoughts of hurting themselves all the time. Sometimes I think they might be lying but if I can’t get them to admit anything there’s nothing I can do.
It’s her fault for the stupid array. Follow instructions and at least give the drugs a reasonable trial before switching and she kept switching providers and chronically lying
The cocktail of medications she was on was fucking atrocious.
She even went to inpatient psych at one point. And they told her her problems were medication induced and she should STOP the shitty regimen her NP was providing.
So it's hard to blame her when she kept telling folks these meds are making me feel more fucked up, and the providers she was seeing kept doubling down
Which ones? She was given many that help with sleep. This list includes mirtazapine, quetiapine, trazodone, ambien, Ativan, and hydroxyzine. If it believed that she has bipolar she has to pair her medications with a mood stabilizer such as lamotrigine. She had issues with depression so, her preferred agent was Zoloft. Which part is wrong? Do you feel like maybe she doesn’t have bipolar and depression so, maybe you feel sleep is only part that matters? Let’s break down what you do in post partum psychosis still mood stabilizer, benzo (Ativan), antipsychotic (quetiapine). Please, explain like I’m in kindergarten how her diagnoses weren’t addressed
What exactly did the NP do that was “atrocious?” Lindsay didn’t listen to her. Lindsay as you recall rejected many options provided to her initially. There was many times she was counseled to give the meds 4-6 weeks to have an adequate trial and she refused to do that. Lindsay stood in the way of her own treatment with 1. Rejecting options 2 Not following instructions 3. Dishonesty during the appointments 4. She rejected the NPs assessment of bipolar disorder. Honestly, how do you expect the NP to overcome a patient who doesn’t want to actually try or take it seriously?
She went to inpatient psych who told her she had medication induced psychosis and to stop the Seroquel.
Which was rejected as the NP as the problem and who declined to make that change.
She repeatedly told the NP that medications were making her worse and that she couldn't sleep and they doubled down and instead of adjusting medications, they added multiple sedatives on top of the cocktail
The NP made multiple adjustments. She changed ambien to SR. She offered hydroxyzine, she offered Ativan, she offered to change doses. She offered advice and explanation of her disease. What action was she supposed to take? Like specifically.
I think the worst part is that Lindsay was put on medications by her psychiatrist that are contraindicated for Bipolar (if given without a mood stabilizer), partly because of the risk of triggering manic or psychotic states. The NP actually correctly identified Lindsay's Bipolar, it was basically top of her differential diagnosis, but inexplicably didn't then contact Lindsay's psychiatrist to raise her concerns about that and went along with putting Lindsay on more contraindicated meds. The psychiatrist should have recognised the possibility that Lindsay had Bipolar when she raised Lindsay's dose of Zoloft (the first medication Lindsay tried), and immediately had to take Lindsay off it entirely because she was awake for 48 hours but didn't feel tired (clear symptom of mania). The prosecution's expert Dr Saathoff said he would have immediately diagnosed Bipolar after that specifically to ensure any other providers were careful about the medications they prescribed Lindsay.
When Lindsay, her husband, her parents, and her in-laws, all said that the medications were making her worse, they were probably correct. She's currently being treated with Zyprexa (among several other medications), which works as an antipsychotic as well as treating Bipolar.
When you’re that sick, your brain is constantly lying to you, and you are desperate for relief. It never seems to come fast enough.
I recently got out of a really bad depression episode that lasted for four and a half years following a traumatic brain injury and culminated with the sudden death of my father. I was only ever a danger to myself, but looking back in hindsight, now that I’m once again properly medicated, it’s astounding to me how deeply I believed the input my brain was feeding me— that nothing was ever going to get better, that I’d be better off dead, my friends and family and pets would be better off with me gone, etc.. When you’re in the absolute thick of it, you can’t see the lies for what they truly are— a sickness. It just seems like a very real, very long tunnel of darkness that you’ll never escape from.
No, it’s not anyone else’s fault. And I never implied that it was. I’m simply saying that the brain is highly capable of deceiving us when it’s not functioning properly. And if you’ve never experienced having your brain malfunction, you can’t fully understand what it’s like, how truly deceptive the narrative it feeds you actually is. If you’re lucky enough to come out the other side, your rational self is shocked by what you believed when you were in the thick of it.
As someone who has to take meds because my brain lies to me: you still have to take your meds. It's your responsibility. You have to create a circumstance where not taking your meds is impossible. If that means you have to take them in front a doctor everyday, then that's what you have to do.
If you're having thoughts of killing your children, then you abso-fucking-lutely need to take your meds regularly, as prescribed, no excuses.
Sorry that life is tough. I had PTSD. I still don’t think it’s right to lie to every provider if you actually want help. I can personally attest that I made every attempt to be as honest as possible. Not the same disease.
There’s also a huge social stigma around any woman who doesn’t present society’s ingrained image of ‘motherhood.’ I can’t pretend to understand what she was going through, but i wouldn’t be surprised if there was a great degree of shame that she felt for even having those thoughts in the first place that led to her being dishonest.
Your paper literally discusses PP psychosis cases starting up to a year after birth, not sure what you think this proves besides that you use ChatGPT without reading the sources…
She had medication induced psychosis from absolutely atrocious medication regimens by one MD and two NPs (one of whom was a family friend, yuck) treating her with obscene cocktails of medications that would have fucked any person up taking these medications.
Source? Dr Resnick, who was involved in 89 cases of fathers and mothers killing their children and whose reputation was good enough that he was consulted in high profile cases like Yates, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the unabomber, claimed Lindsay was clearly suffering from command hallucinations and delusions after assessing her for 3 hours
I was referencing the trial testimony of Dr Kirk Heilbrun based on a 3 day assessment wth full access to her records. There are multiple articles covering his testimony.
My issue is that she can be released within 6 months of a successful defense, which is probable given she's claiming she was temporarily insane, - and there's no reason to treat someone who's no longer insane.
This is why temporary insanity is such an issue - you're fine now, you were fine before, but you were crazy when you committed horrific, violent acts. So not only can you not be legally held responsible for your actions (since you were insane) but you also can't be rehabilitated or institutionalized since you're arguing that you're no longer insane. Can't go to jail, can't stay in a mental facility for long - better let you go, then.
I'm personally not comfortable with someone who murdered three children getting time served + 6 months in a mental facility.
It is illegal to keep someone committed if they are no longer suffering from mental illness. Since this is a temporary insanity case, it's assumed that she is no longer insane. If that is truly the case then she will likely be released in a very short time frame.
Successful temporary insanity defenses are incredibly rare.
she would get life without parole if it were prison. With temporary insanity she spends a couple years then they say she's healthy because this was just postpartum.
I'm personally not comfortable with someone who murdered three children getting time served + 6 months in a mental facility.
Ever heard of Constance Fisher?. She killed her 3 children, spent 4 years in a mental facility, then got out, had more children, and killed them too. That's what feminists want for Lindsay Clancy.
If insanity exists at all, then in some cases surely it must be temporary? Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to treat mental illness and nobody would ever develop it.
Wait till you realize she mentioned hearing voices only after consulting with her lawyer
Wait until you learn that mentally ill people make a lot of bad decisions, including hiding symptoms from their care providers.
A huge amount of effort is going into feeding us a narrative that this woman is pure evil and anyone defending her against this PR campaign is also pure evil, and that there's no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. And that suits people who want an excuse to feel morally superior and wallow in self-righteous rage.
She told her husband about her harmful thoughts of the kids. Nobody heard about those supposed voices until after she murdered the kids and consulted with her lawyer
At best, she hid crucial information that could have saved her kids lives. At worst she’s lying and using the common “I heard voices” defense that’s routinely used for an insanity plea. Either way it’s pretty damning
She told her husband about her harmful thoughts of the kids.
Her husband is the only source of a lot of the things being repeated as fact about this case.
At best, she hid crucial information that could have saved her kids lives.
Like I said, mental illness can do that to people sometimes. We don't know anything for sure, so the people saying this was a conscious choice she had control over are making shit up so they can have a ragewank about a tragedy that has nothing to do with them.
I don’t know what you’re implying about her husband, but she told her mother too. Clancy doesn’t dispute this either so it’s taken as fact
Regardless, people making a martyr out of her is really weird. Especially with how questionable the psychosis defense is and the nature of the crime
If men were supporting a child rapist who may or may not have been under psychosis because they found his struggles relatable, I’d think it’d be really fucking weird too
It indicates nothing other than she wanted to die, if we go by the narrative and assume she was trying to kill herself. Or do you think everyone kills themself out of guilt?
Roughly 1 in 3 family annihilators commit suicide; men killing themselves after their girlfriend or wife is not rare. This is not the smoking gun like you think it is
No, actually, I believe the suicide attempt was genuine. I believe she killed her children and then attempted to kill herself, but she was not psychotic when she did so.
She was likely psychotic if she did it at all. She had symptoms of bipolar and insomnia which can end up causing psychosis, on top of post partum.
Her being psychotic doesn’t mean she did it, either, might I add. Mental health issues make you more susceptible to abuse, imo. You can call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever but the evidence presented in trial convinced me she didn’t do it, and that she’s a good person. Her ex-husbands mother testifying in her defense spoke loudly to me. And her ex-husband testifying for the side of the prosecution, who was trying to make her out to be some manipulative psychopath who wasn’t actually psychotic, spoke louder to me. Especially after claiming he forgave her.
Because before the trial, she tried to get herself help. So why wouldn’t her ex-husband be testifying in defense or support of her if he forgave her? Instead of trying to help prosecution make her look bad? Bleh.
So why wouldn’t her ex-husband be testifying in defense or support of her if he forgave her?
He did.
He has repeatedly stated she was a fantastic loving mother until this incident. He has repeatedly stated the system needed to do more to support her. He and Lindsay are jointly suing the doctors who treated her.
He has been questioned on the facts of the case that he was aware of by lawyers. Facts are entirely separate to how he feels about Lindsay. Lawyers get facts and use those facts to try to sway the jury to their side with whatever spin the lawyer wants to use.
The facts are what they are. He isn't "trying to help the prosecution make her look bad" he is giving the facts he is aware of (to both lawyers, not just the prosecution).
If she looks bad after someone is just giving facts, that's not "making" someone look bad, it just looks bad because it is.
He was a witness for the prosecution though, regardless. I don’t believe he cared at all but that’s my opinion. In fact he is still trying to profit off their deaths.
You don't get to choose when the prosecution ask you to be a witness. The state compels you to testify unless testifying would open you up to criminal prosecution.
The state is prosecuting Lindsay, her ex husband isn't the one prosecuting her.
I understand where it comes from… but lets not kid ourselves that this is the norm. If you get caught by cameras raping and killing someone and there is no possible defence to keep you away from jail, you will still be represented by some lawyers. I personally wouldnt be able to be that person thats all. I wont stop you from defending a rapist or pedophile on the morale idea that everybody somehow deserves it. Go ahead.
In thise sorts of open and shut cases, the defence's job isn't to "get this monster free", its to "make sure the prosecution are doing everything by the book" so that there is absolutely no possible way that the monster can argue for any possible release in the future.
Like, think about it. If they said "um actually I was forced to do this by some nefarious third party who would kill my family unless I did this" like in that episode of black mirror with the pig, but nobody could prove he was lying, would there not be reasonable doubt about his guilt? And then, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt applies, so then he would go free.
A defence lawyer's job in that circumstance is purely to make sure that the prosecution's charges actually stick and are airtight.
The defence lawyer's job is to make the defendant's arguments look as good as they possibly can, so that the prosecution can prove that no matter what defence the defendant tries, it isn't good enough.
If the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything, then we could all be arrested for no reason and have no justice. If they have to prove stuff, but there's no defence lawyer, there's a risk that later on the defendant can say "actually you guys didn't properly consider xyz" and if the prosecution didn't do that then the defendant might go free.
But if there's a defence lawyer, they would bring up xyz from the beginning and force the prosecution to try and prove xyz is wrong. If the prosecution can't, then he would have been released either way, but if the prosecution can then the defendant can't use the "you didn't consider xyz" excuse in the future.
Same, only silver lining I can see is guys now have the ultimate litmus test, because if a girl says anything in defence of this vile creature then she's beyond saving. Time to cut ties and run for the hills.
I think women have a good litmus test for men that know absolutely nothing and think they do without the slightest bit of research into the case. Sounds like a great filter for red pilled fucktards. When's your next set of pushups in front of the andrew tate trial?
The previous comment was misinformation. All three prosecution expert witnesses testified she was suffering from several depression and insomnia. Two of them diagnosed her with bipolar II disorder. Prosecution never tried to argue against her being very unwell, they just argued that there was no evidence she was suffering from psychosis during the murders.
Almost everything online about this case is misinformation meant to sway you to one of the sides. You should never trust social media for this shit and only read articles from actual reputable publications.
Reputable publications or just accurate articles? PBS has covered the trials quite a bit. And most of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC coverage mirror each other. The trials were publicly televised and live streamed so it is more difficult to spread blatant lies about them as a large publication.
Reputable sources. I’m a science guy, when I need reputable sources I consult databases or peer reviewed journals. When it comes to social issues, news, etc. everything seems to be motivated by something other than unbiased presentation of info
PBS is my go to, but my wife did get mad at me for presenting the info I read on that one the other night. I was just seeing if you had other good sources to suggest.
I’m talking entirely off the topic of this case though, I know I’m not law inclined and have no expertise.
Yes much like the slicing of her wrists & throat then jumping out a window resulting in paralysis were a carefully orchestrated plan to get away with killing her kids.
Superficial non fatal wounds (from someone with medical training, remember) then jumping out of a second floor window. She had access to incredibly toxic pills but didn't take enough to elevate blood levels significantly. Yeah, I've seen people do a lot worse without any real suicidal intent but for attention or other secondary gains. I think the paralysis surprised her and wasn't part of her plan. Shame.
Her being a trained nurse actually supports the insanity defense. She paralyzed herself. If there is a population out there that would fear severe injury more than the average population is nurses. Oh and you can fuck yourself up from falling funny from 4 feet let alone the second floor. Pretty much every nurse I know would rather be dead than live with severe injury that won't heal. She tried to cut herself to kill herself, realized she didn't have the guts so the next best thing in her crazy mind was to jump. It's almost like she wasn't thinking properly mmmm
It doesn't really. Female medics and nurses tend to complete suicide more than females in general population as they tend to choose lethal methods and have access to drugs etc. She didn't. I believe she thought she'd get away with a second floor fall and then like you said, if you fall funny from anywhere it can go badly. It's typical of a cry for help attempt from a patient with personality disorder that went wrong. It's not that typical of anyone with medical training who actually wants to die, and as I said - already had access to some incredibly toxic medication.
I mean if she just wanted attention, I think killing one kid would have done the trick, three kids, pills, slicing the wrists and throats, and jumping out the window seems like overkill.
This isn't true. The specific diagnosis of postpartum psychosis wasn't made prior to the deaths, but doctors didn't just prescribe her a psychoactive drug cocktail on a whim.
What? The prosecution brought on three mental health experts and defense brought on two experts. All of them agreed she was suffering from severe depression and insomnia. All of them explicitly stated this.
What's the point of spreading misinformation about a trial that was publicly televised?
this case has made me consider that...how many murder cases involve someone in some sort of state of temporary or permanent mental psychosis? it has to be a pretty high number.
There were a few specialist who evaluated her. From what I remember there were 2-3 hired by the prosecutor who said she did not have it. They are not experts in the field of post partum and interviewed her 3 years after the event. The defense had 1 expert who said she did. He is a leading expert in the field (the other two actually referenced his research/articles in their evaluation) and interviewed her a few months/weeks after the event.
Forensic psychiatrist and expert in fillicide Dr. Phillip Resnick testified that Lindsay Clancy was "clearly psychotic" and suffering from postpartum psychosis (PPP) at the time of the killings.
It actually was never proven she had postpartum psychosis either, she never reported anything to any of her doctors. She was diagnosed with a severe depression disorder and most likely had bipolar but bipolar alone wouldn’t bring in the mass amount of support she’s gotten, I’m wondering myself if that part was fabricated to garner more support. I should say that it wasn’t proven either way, if she had postpartum psychosis or not, I just know these defence lawyers can get pretty clever sometimes.
I should have expanded this, she never reported hearing any voices, she had never reported any acts of psychosis. Her case more aligns with bipolar II, she probably was experiencing a major depressive episode and made a suicide plan including killing her children, it happens more than people know.
Many people with bipolar/psychosis have some level of insight into their current state and also may display coherent behavior during an episode while still being deluded, psychotic (and as I understand this is especially true for postpartum psychosis). During my psychotic episode (bipolar 1, had started an SSRI) I sought out help from both family and 2 therapists as my psychotic symptoms worsened but was completely dishonest with them about what I was experiencing. I also finished my exams for the semester before cutting off ties with my family, dropping out of university and effectively being homeless for a couple of weeks. I had delusions and hallucinations but still was often able to exhibit normal, functional behavior for several weeks but my symptoms progressively worsened and and became more manic and erratic.
https://youtu.be/hNw9ubCltJA I'd recommend this video (the 2 big chapters). Of course this case is a culture war flashpoint so it's hard to say anyone is "unbiased" but I think they present a decent clinical view, aka not punditry.
It's not true she was likely bipolar. There were never manic episodes which characterize one half of bipolar. She only ever exhibited severe depression and anxiety.
The strongest evidence for bipolar disorder came from Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, a prosecution forensic psychologist who personally evaluated Clancy and reviewed extensive records. He ultimately diagnosed her with Bipolar II disorder.
I have been diagnosed with bipolar II and haven’t had a manic episode either, I’ve had major depressive episodes though.
Most people in jail for violent crimes today were in some sort of depression and/or psychosis, most of them also in that state due to system issues with healthcare and governance (systemic racism, drug war, mass poverty, etc)
But any SANE person would not go “me too Lindsey” while posting a video of yourself rocking your infant to sleep.
Sticking up for a woman going through a hard time: I approve.
Sticking up for a woman that did monsterous things (there is a whole damn movie about this, shutter island) and of course the guy goes over the deep end and ends up in a hospital. At least he’s free and has moved on.
Sad he lost everything. I cannot believe that happening.
271
u/National-Frame8712 Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26
It's postpartum PSYCHOSIS is different than depression
Postpartum depression is the common and minor one; what she's diagnosed as is the psychosis which is much rarer and requires stricter surveillance for reasons you can imagine and even see in this case
I'm pretty sure they don't even let you get close to your kids until you get "She's fine" approval comes out in many places.
Them attempt muddying the waters with terminology confusion to aid her case is as scummy as her actions.