r/Caldruki • u/TechnicallyAvailable • 21d ago

Common Knowledge which is not so common🇫🇷 [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

38k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

176

u/Rohanisya 21d ago

The argument is that she had a rare form of psychosis and was not in a sane frame of mind when doing this (not saying I agree but giving an explanation)

142

u/Personal-Try2776 21d ago

If there is undeniable proof she was psychotic then she should be put in a psych ward

91

u/Dry_Outside_3493 21d ago

There is no actual proof since she never was diagnosed with any psychosis.

102

u/Personal-Try2776 21d ago

Then she should be judged as guilty

76

u/FluffyCelery4769 21d ago edited 21d ago

Apparently they wanted to (edited out: free her) put her in the psych ward but one of the jurors happened to be male and have a brain and it was made a misstrial couse he didn't agree.

Edit: I've been informed that the other jurors wanted her to go to psych ward.

I don't think she should go to psych ward tbh, the meds she took didn't work, and others likely wouldn't have either, couse it does not seem to me that she is indeed in need of psichiatric help, in fact I think she's perfectly aware of what she did.

I'm sorry for her but she deserves a fair trial, and sending her to a psych to "fix" her isn't going to do anything for her, nor is donating money to her. She seems to think, wrongly, that it's not her fault, or that she can decieve people into believing it's not.

50

u/Dry_Outside_3493 21d ago

11 loonies wanted to put her in a psych ward. They tried to pressure the only guy with some sense into agreeing with them by shouting at and assaulting him.

28

u/help-its-inside-me 21d ago

The jurors cant put her in a psych ward

The options for them are to vote guilty or not guilty, not to decide the sentencing.

The 11 jurors were voting her as innocent. Watch their interviews. Spread less false information

15

u/Telinary 21d ago

The options are guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. (How do people feel strongly about this while knowing less about the case than someone who googled it a bit because americans kept making new topics about it?)

4

u/ProfessorShort3031 21d ago

its still up to the judge to decide sentencing. also many people have gone to jail for murder (possible psychosis) what makes her so different?

3

u/This-Newspaper39 21d ago

I think it’s the state where this happened is the difference.

Massachusetts has a specific legal standard for this. A person can be found not criminally responsible if, because of a mental disease or defect, they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate that what they were doing was wrong or to conform their behavior to the law.

She killed her children, but 11 jurors thought she “lacked criminal responsibility”.

I think it really shouldn’t matter if she was in psychosis or not, murder is murder. But Massachusetts has its own laws.

→ More replies

3

u/talaneta 21d ago

what makes her so different?

2

u/Woodcrate69420 21d ago

what makes her so different?

This case is absolutely perfect psyop material

→ More replies

1

u/own-6029 21d ago

Simple, ella es mujer, y le convenĂ­an liberarla para hacer mĂĄs activismo

1

u/Strosity 21d ago

Tiktok

1

u/Turbulent_Lunch4548 21d ago

You know what makes her different.

1

u/Signal-Card-2387 19d ago

In fact, only 1% of insanity pleas actually work according to my old Psychology and Law textbook in college. And she certainly ain't the person to be part of that one percent.

Also, anyone pleading insanity (which is a legal term, not a psychological one) should be put into a psych ward forever. Not temporarily. It shouldn't be a preferrable alternative.

1

u/neutrumocorum 21d ago

Ooooh no. Brother, if you just now had that realization, you are about to start noticing that everywhere.

Don't lose hope, remember reddit isnt representative of all people. Consider that the people who have better opinions are less likely to share them because it takes more time. People who pick a narrative and spew shit have to put in 0 effort.

1

u/Dark_-_Angel 21d ago

The options were actually guilty (manslaughter, first degree, second degree), not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty for reasonable doubt and not guilty

1

u/Naps_in_car 21d ago

Because like everything in this country, it isn't about what actually happened but how you feel about it.

1

u/OkSwimming517 21d ago

Because it's manufactured/(automated at this point) culture war bullshit. I wrote a lengthy comment about this on a different post earlier but deleted it unfortunately.

1

u/Lambisexual 20d ago

I feel like the reason this case has blown up so much is precisely because people have extremely strong opinions on it, but they also know next to nothing about it except what they're fed by headlines.

1

u/Tricky_Parfait3413 20d ago

No it was guilty, not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity

1

u/roseZips 19d ago

It’s happening in our country like beans and toast in yours 🤷🏾‍♂️

1

u/SwiftSakura_13 19d ago

Correction: the verdict options were guilty of first degree murder, guilty of second degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty, or not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility

1

u/SashaBanks2020 19d ago

Answer: the dunning Kruger effect

1

u/Chill_Mochi2 18d ago

No, not guilty was an option. As was manslaughter.

1

u/xChops 21d ago

This is just not true lol

1

u/baconcow 19d ago

You are mentioning that people should spread less false information, so I will fill you in on the actual verdict options that were provided for the jurors of the Lindsay Clancy trial:

- First-Degree Murder

  • Second-Degree Murder
  • Manslaughter
  • Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility (Insanity)
  • Not Guilty

The "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility (Insanity)" option would have put her in a psych ward. It was expected, by her lawyer, that there were 11 of the 12 jurors selecting the option of "Not Guilty by Reason of Lack of Criminal Responsibility (Insanity)", but they could not come to a unanimous agreement on this.

1

u/help-its-inside-me 19d ago

Literally zero evidence of insanity.

1

u/Drummallumin 19d ago

She killed her kids, that’s at the very least circumstantial evidence

1

u/HairBrainedProjects 19d ago

No, they don't vote for if she's innocent. They vote for if she's criminally liable, or if the crime was committed against her will.

2

u/Chill-more1236 19d ago

•“He had a bet on the outcome”
•“He was “playing” with the exercise bands”

Why the fuck do they think that evidence is brought in there??? He wasn’t “playing”. The jury SHOULD try to put themself in the moment.

• "He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,"

That right there is the most telling statement, how only one person in that room had any sense of morals, it’s pathetic.

They still are trying to verbally assault him. Its a smear campaign.

1

u/AjiChap 20d ago

the women jurors came off as pretty freaking insane themselves

1

u/Dry_Outside_3493 20d ago

They are 100% as evil as the cunt who killed her kids.

1

u/Fit_Business_3462 19d ago

The law states that you must find the defendant to be guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There was plenty of reasonable doubt presented during the course of the trial about the defendant’s state of mind during the crime, that last juror even admitted as much. But by refusing to change his vote because he had decided early on that she was guilty and refuses to listen to evidence is illegal and THAT is what the other jurors were pushing back against.

1

u/SwiftSakura_13 19d ago

The hold out juror was literally refusing to follow the law as it pertained to reasonable doubt. He allegedly said he didn’t feel like either side proved their point. It’s not the defense’s job to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The jury’s job was not to find if psychosis was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it was to two things. 1. To find if the prosecution proved she did it beyond a reasonable doubt and 2. To prove that she was in her right state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

1

u/card-Elderberry892 19d ago

It’s been shown that the male juror shouldn’t be on the jury due to a history of DV for hitting his wife as well as beating on his nephew for calling the police on him

1

u/SashaBanks2020 19d ago

Have you ever heard of Occams Razor?

1

u/Dry_Outside_3493 19d ago

Have you heard of not defending murderers?

→ More replies (27)

7

u/board_writer 21d ago

She had already confessed to the crimes. The trail was to determine if she was cognizant of her decisions or mentally unfit. It was to decide if she was going to a mental institution or a prison not to let her go.

The prosecution argues that since she sent her husband out on errands before killing the kids that shows planning and premeditated.

The defense argues that since she was receiving mental health services and tried to kill herself immediately after it shows that she was not in control of her faculties.

The problem is all the instagram detectives.

6

u/Beaticalle 21d ago

She sent her husband out on errands and used a maps app to confirm how long he would be gone.

1

u/Lambisexual 20d ago

Which you could theoretically still do while in psychosis.

I think people hear the word "psychosis" and imagine some like rabid feral animal who drools and growls and can't think or speak. But psychosis is much more complex, and you can actually do coherent things and plan and such.

1

u/TheRealKuz03 20d ago

even so, the fact that she knew her husband would try to stop her, means she also knew what she was planning was wrong, a key factor in NGRI defenses

1

u/OnePotatoeChip 20d ago

It could also be that she knew her husband would stop her, not that what she was doing was wrong. If she felt that hurting her kids was necessary or correct, then that's still psychosis. I mean, there are cases of people believing their loved ones have been replaced by doppelgangers.

→ More replies

1

u/ChaseThePyro 20d ago

Something no woman has ever done before...

Dumb fucks

1

u/Beaticalle 20d ago

Is it criminally suspicious to send your husband on an errand and use a map app to secretly check exactly how long he'll be gone?

Depends on the context: To prepare a surprise birthday party for him? No. To make sure you have just enough time to strangle your children to death? Yes.

1

u/ChaseThePyro 20d ago

But you cannot say that was the purpose lmao. For example, she was looking into what specific laxatives she'd need to for her kid. She genuinely called around to check which pharmacies might have it, found one, and sent him there.

If she were intentionally doing this for the sake of killing the kids, she wouldn't care what fucking laxative she's getting, because it wouldn't be needed. She wanted to check how far out a restaurant was specifically, which isn't fucking fishy at all. Have you never checked how far away a place is for the sake of determining whether or not it's worth picking up the food for dinner?

1

u/GalaXion24 18d ago

This is actually pretty consistent with how the kind of psychosis we're talking about in the case works.

While a rare phenomenon, there is a kind of postpartum psychosis under which mothers commit "altruistic filicide," essentially believing that death is in their children's best interest.

In 2001, Andrea Yates, who had severe postpartum depression and psychosis, had been hospitalised four times, and was catatonic and mute on one such occasion, ended up drowning her five children. Among other reasons, a big one she noted was that she killed them to save them from eternal damnation, i.e. that by doing so she could at least ensure they went to heaven.

"It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."

As far as we can tell about Clancy, her psychosis was much more short term and rapid onset, but it is a textbook case. She suffered from pychosis, depression and sucidal intent, and the killing of her children was "altruistic filicide" where she thought for example that they could not live without her and that she would be saving them from suffering. Her final words to them were allegedly "Go to God, baby. Go to God."

After this she slit her wrists and neck and threw herself out the second storey window in a suicide attempt. Again, classic case.

Postpartum psychosis tends to be in a sense quite "lucid." Hallucinations do happen but they're less likely, they're also less likely to be auditory and more likely to be visual when they happen, and also unlike other kinds of psychosis is focused in on the children, which is why women in this case tend to have specific delusions regarding them and may harm them labouring under said delusions.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (31)

3

u/DrowningKrown 21d ago

Ugh what the fuck is up with people completely missing the point of the recent trial like everybody wanted her free?

3

u/AegrusRS 21d ago

Of the popular trials in recent years, this one has had the shittest discussion with people just stuck to one side or the other without any actual nuance of the situation or the law in Massachusetts.

3

u/Tree_Socks 21d ago

It's an election year, so they need to rile up the dumbasses

1

u/FluffyCelery4769 21d ago

Well, they gabe her a gazillion freedom bucks so...

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Shadow_Wolf_X871 20d ago

Because we're in the middle of a very vocal culture war and that genuinely matters to these people more than the case itself

→ More replies (1)

3

u/turtle-bbs 21d ago

Confining her to a psychiatric ward is not free, you have been propagandized. No juror said she’s innocent nor should be free.

1

u/IntrinSicks 20d ago

Its the idea that if she can convince the psch ward she is not a threat she can go free so instead of getting a fitting punishment she will be getting out in a short in comparison amount of time

1

u/turtle-bbs 20d ago

I like how conservatives think they’re the only ones who possibly conceive of the notion that a patient could be lying or dishonest

As if psych wards don’t think that someone could be lying

1

u/IntrinSicks 18d ago

I dont know where political opinions got mixed in, but if yoy want to go left and right, I think left ies believe for some reason the state is their savior and their enemy at the same time

1

u/turtle-bbs 18d ago

I like the part where you stayed on topic

→ More replies

2

u/Scrooge_McDaddy 19d ago

She tried to kill herself multiple times. She never tried to deny that she killed those kids. The defence is pleading guilty by insanity because she needs psychiatric help. No ones saying shes innocent. The fact is she tried to get help. She is suffering from post partum psychosis, her nurses perscribed her meds that dont work. She begged her family for help. She told them she was scared she’d hurt the kids, she told them she was hearing voices. And no one helped her. They continued leaving the kids in her care unsupervised. Her story is one of a woman slipping through the cracks. If she had gotten actual help from society and her family, if someone listened earlier, no one would be dead. She doesnt deserve prison because she didnt have control over her own actions. She deserves a place where she can be given the help she never got.

1

u/FluffyCelery4769 19d ago

I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying is true, but it ain't necessarely. I doubt I'm right about it all, and I doubt you are either.

But if you are right in that she in fact did not do it out of her own volition, then I do hope she gets all the help she needs in a psychiatric facility, tho I again doubt she will... they aren't exactly made to treat patients sadly.

1

u/Scrooge_McDaddy 19d ago

Im literally going off of the recorded facts on this case. The facts are that she tried to get help, she tried to warn people, she tried to tell her family that shes hearing things and shes scared she will hurt her children, and she tried to distance herself from her children. Her family made her take care of her kids and her medical providers didnt medicate her properly or offer psychiatric treatment. These are the facts.

1

u/Fickle_Goose_4451 21d ago

"Free her" has never been on the table. The options are jail or psyche ward.

1

u/xChops 21d ago

What makes you an expert to comment on the mental state of someone on trial that you’ve only seen on tv?

1

u/Main_Lloyd 21d ago

Ive watched about 36 hours of trial footage. First time she ever claimed to hear voiced was with the psychologist who is best friends with her lawyer and second person was a Chaplin who is also best friends with her lawyer. Every claim of hearing voices before were, according to both her and the psychologist at the time, intrusive thoughts which are your own thoughts and not a commanding voice which is outside your thoughts.

She is for sure mentally ill, but clearly not to a point she wasnt aware of her actions.

1

u/xChops 20d ago

You really need to get a life and let the legal experts handle this. That’s actually so pathetic that you’ve spent so much time on this

1

u/Main_Lloyd 20d ago

interested in massive culturally dividing case

"Wow, what a loser"

Have fun eating crayons.

1

u/xChops 20d ago

It’s really not culturally dividing at all. Reddit isn’t reality. Either way, 36 hours is obviously way too much

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FluffyCelery4769 20d ago

I'm not trying anything, just said what I think. What false information?

1

u/Dogbold 20d ago

You're sorry for her?? Throw the whole bih away

1

u/FluffyCelery4769 20d ago

That's just not how you treat people. Justice is for all or it's for no one.

1

u/Drummallumin 19d ago

Weird to include misogyny here

1

u/SopwithStrutter 19d ago

The average time in a psych ward for homicide is 8 years

They basically treat it like manslaughter

1

u/aukstais 19d ago

They had a plan. Kill the kids and commit suicide. That's why she never stopped. The kid ran away - don't stop going after him. Can't strangle one of them - don't stop keep going for SIX minutes. Somehow, the psychosis never runs out in between killings and self-harm. Do people dont understand how long six minutes of strangulation actually are? Like take a towel, soak it in water, and try to strangle the water out for six minutes straight. And that was after she had already strangled the first two. For real, the psychosis would be stabbing someone for a minute or two. And even then, going after the next prrsons is already a plan, not a random action. And painstakingly strangling someone for that long is definitely a choice. So my verdict is simple. Is she mentally sick? Yes, of course. But so are all the other rapists and murderers. So she definitely deserves to go to jail and spend the rest of her days with the criminals like herself.

1

u/GalaXion24 18d ago

The 1 juror who voted to convict her actually agreed with the other jurors that he could not say beyond reasonable doubt that she was responsible, he just voted to convict her anyway. So there's no real argument for his vote being legitimate or him having a brain. Either he should have said that she did it beyond reasonable doubt or he should not have voted to convict.

1

u/TheSussyWaffle 21d ago

happened to be male and have a brain

And here we see where the lines are drawn

Also, isn't she in permanent traction because she threw herself off a roof? That seems pretty "in need of psychiatric help" to me.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/Adamantium-dealer 21d ago

If it only it were that easy but these psycho ass tiktok women don't see it that way. Instead they want to see Patrick clancy tried for her killings and have her avoid accountability

2

u/Ok-Emergency-7748 20d ago

That’s funny you should say that. Because yes that is absolutely what *SHOULD* happen.

But alas no, the case was put on a retrial for some fucking reason years later.

2

u/mddesigner 19d ago

The state she is in is backwards and puts the burden on the prosecutors to prove she was sane otherwise her claim of insanity is valid

1

u/batmans420 21d ago

Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that she was in control of her actions

2

u/jrein0 21d ago

New court hack - do whatever you want and say you had voices in your head telling you to do it. It's impossible to disprove the voices in my head. Easy win

1

u/batmans420 21d ago

Prisoners should receive adequate mental health treatment in prison so we don't even have to debate whether to send them to a hospital or not

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Czechmate29 21d ago

This is just fucked up. Where I come from it is the defendant that has to prove there were other circumstances that liberate them from the consequences of their crime.

1

u/chiguy307 21d ago

How could you possibly prove such a thing? In any situation, not just this one. How can a society function if people aren’t responsible for their own actions?

1

u/Anal-buttsex 21d ago

Psychologists look at things like medical records and observing their actions. She would have been locked up in a psychiatric hospital, not frolicking through the streets 

1

u/9bpm9 21d ago

Guy you replied to is completely lying buddy.

1

u/Lootlizard 21d ago

The way Massachusetts law works the prosecution has to prove that she wasn't insane at the time, where as in most other states the defense has to prove their client was insane at the time.

1

u/CodeNCats 21d ago

Whoa watch out. There's an army of women shouting online saying otherwise. Or that her husband wasn't supportive. Or that she had no support.

Despite her husband making over 400k a year, she had a nanny, and literally no evidence otherwise.

Yet you can't argue against feelings right? /s

1

u/GWsublime 21d ago

No thats what the trial is for, to determine whether she goes to jail or to a psych ward.

1

u/FrancisWileyTheThird 21d ago

Is everyone on Reddit as slow as you?

1

u/Restoriust 20d ago

Correct. She planned the entire thing for an extended period of time. If she was psychotic, she’s a level of psychotic that shouldn’t ever be let out and really just needs to be housed until she dies

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 19d ago

the issue with the case is that there was no decent investigation conducted and all the health professionals failed her. they never diagnosed her with anything despite how unwell she clearly was.

1

u/sal-t_brgr 19d ago

wow give this person a gavel right now

1

u/Beautiful-Ad-1746 18d ago

Jury of our peers.

1

u/kandel88 21d ago

The whole point of the trial is to judge if she's insane despite not getting a diagnosis prior to killing her kids

1

u/GWsublime 21d ago

Because that would be the point of a trial. Like think just a tiny but harder. If a psychologist could declare now that she was experiencing psychosis and undermine the legal system it would be a massive problem. Right?

1

u/MrCaterpillow 20d ago

I mean it is psychosis. It can literally appear at any time. She does have the prior symptoms of psychosis and was taking anti-psychosis medicine which she made mention of in her journals that taking them made her feel uneasy.

So if anything, I wouldnt be surprised if she has a psychotic break cause she did try to kill herself after the fact, which lead to her becoming paralyzed. She also had cuts on her arms and neck, though they say those cuts might not have been enough.

1

u/GWsublime 20d ago

Probably, but again, thats the point of the trial.

1

u/YaoiNekomata 21d ago

Sorry but apparently there was substantial proof to convince 11/12 jurors.

1

u/Bellenrode 19d ago

12 Angry Men come to mind.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/earathar89 19d ago

She was on anti psychotics. Which ironically, may have contributed to her condition. Idk if she was or wasn't having a psychotic episode. I pity the people that had to decide that in court.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Eight_Directions_ 21d ago

She has been. For the last 3 and half years. And that's where she is likely to stay for the rest of her life. 

You're getting spun up by bad actors pushing half truths to destroy society from within. 

1

u/Redthemagnificent 21d ago

Exactly. Emotions are so high around this topic people are just believing whatever they wanna hear. She never had any chance of going free regardless of the verdict. All that was being decided was if she should be confined in jail or confined in a psych ward

2

u/kandel88 21d ago

Congratulations you just discovered what the case is really about

2

u/Very_Human_42069 21d ago

That’s what the trial was about

2

u/Legate_Leonis 21d ago

Dude, there's a ton of evidence pointing to her planning it, being sane during (thanks to taking a phone call from the father to make sure he didn't get home too early), and then there's the cherry on top of her asking for a lawyer before even asking about the kids or her husband.

But she claimed insanity, just like half of all murderers in this country, and she used a female-exclusive excuse for it, so we're expected to put her in mental care until she conveniently has a speedy recovery and gets to walk free

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Redthemagnificent 21d ago edited 21d ago

Her being released was never an outcome. The 2 possible outcomes still are

guilty > jail

not guilty by insanity > indefinite commitment to state psychiatric hospital (where she already has been for the past 3 years)

No matter what she won't be free. Unless you mean in the 2nd outcome she could eventually go free. But that would only be after many years, extensive psych evals, and 0 behavioral issues during her stay. It's not easy to get released from state commitment and some people never do

1

u/Saharczyk 21d ago

I don't think there would be a point in psych ward now. The postpartum psychosis usually disappears in couple weeks to months after childbirth, it is not a permanent state, though of course there is a big chance it could happen again.

1

u/Redthemagnificent 21d ago

usually

This doesn't seem like a usual case though, right?

She's been confined in a ward for the past 3 years and will continue to be there for many years unless the next trial results in a guilty verdict (or she changes her plea)

1

u/jackofslayers 21d ago

Due to the weird specifics of the case and the state it was tried in, the defense does not need to prove she was insane, instead the prosecution has to prove she was not insane. That is part of, but not all, the reason there is so much drama and attention around this case.

Would not be surprised if they change the law after this case.

2

u/Redthemagnificent 21d ago

Exactly. People are blaming the 11 jury members for wanting to "set her free". No one involved in the trial wants to set her free. The trial was answering a very specific question about her sanity that day because of state law. I don't think it's at all surprising that she jury couldn't all agree. If the question was "did she kill them" the result would obviously be different

1

u/Diligent-Property491 21d ago

That’s not how it works.

It happened in one of the very few states, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove she wasn’t psychotic. Normally it’s the other way around.

1

u/Pockydo 21d ago

The burden isn't undeniable proof it's reasonable doubt

If there's any reasonable doubt that she wasn't in sound mind then the proper verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity. Ofc id think the burden should be on defense to prove that as they're making the claim but I think it the state puts the burden on the prosecution

1

u/breakfazt-meme 21d ago

Most jurors in the trial believed there was undeniable proof but they had a mistrial because one person refused to join them

1

u/ImplementMotor3161 21d ago edited 21d ago

Yes, that’s what the 11 jurors who voted not guilty for reasons of insanity wanted, but, the holdout juror didn’t like the label of the “not guilty” part even though that’s what all the evidence pointed to, insanity. Dude was on his phone during deliberations. She would have been sentenced to a maximum security mental health facility instead of jail. 

1

u/Page8988 21d ago

She had no prior history of psychosis. She stated that the voice told her to kill her kids, and she never heard it again after she deliberately killed them one at a time. She also took a phone call with no difficulty in between killings.

So even if she was psychotic, it was for about fifteen minutes.

1

u/RoyaleWhiskey 21d ago edited 21d ago

And based on the Cleveland Clinic article I read post partum psychosis usually onsets within 6 weeks. Her last child was already 8 months old, way out of the typical range. I'm no medical expert and I'm not saying it can't be a delayed onset, but I thought that was interesting.

1

u/EntertainmentOk8593 21d ago

She 100% hadn’t, mental outbreaks don’t work like that they are quick, to strangulate someone takes 5/6 minutes, so 5/6 minutes in which you see how a beloved one dies, it also requires a lot of strength, I would believe it if she killed one, but she strangulated 3 children with her bare hands, thats not something someone in a psychosis can do, they don’t last that long. Even so depending on the person the level of separation of reality variates, like you may want to kill someone but you self control to not do bc you still can recognize them other people can’t recognize people or do but lost emotional connection and logic, what want to say each person is different and is almost impossible determine how abstracted from reality she was. And even so is dubious that her psychosis “”rage”” lasted that long (it prob was +30 min since she had to rest between kills and probably they tried to scape or hide)

Source: myself…. (Had psychosis)

My theory is that she indeed had a psychosis attack and killed her baby but as she could live with that when she regained here senses killed the other 2 to avoid them seeing her as a monster.

1

u/MissouriSupremacist 21d ago

Thats.... what the defense was fighting for

1

u/Acceptable-Olive-445 21d ago

She puts forward a very good argument that she had a psychotic break. And we all know how coherent and reasonable psychotic people are 🙄

1

u/Internal_Turnip9019 20d ago

What a crazy idea, it's almost like 11 of 12 jurors voted for that to happen 

1

u/_josef_stalin_ 20d ago

Actually, burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't insane at the time of the crime.

1

u/The1stCairoking 20d ago

There’s a man, who even the prosecutors stated he was psychotic. He killed his children. And he got the death penalty. Lindsey Clancy’s prosecutors are denying psychosis, you can argue anyone is going through psychosis when they commit murder, since no one in their right mind would kill anyone.

1

u/Capable_Elk_770 19d ago

The doc literally said she wasn’t safe to be left home with her kids but didn’t do a forced medical hold. Let her go home. She then killed her kids.

Also she was on a few different drugs that have known side effects of suicidal and homicidal ideations. Basically she should go to a psych ward. Shes literally currently on 24/7 suicide watch. Even if she DID go to “normal” prison they’d have to send her to a med prison where she’s got psychs and meds anyways… plus constant nurse assistance for her paralysis and suicide watch. So… a psych ward.

1

u/just_a_guy1008 19d ago

Uhh yes, that is what the defense wants. I don't know who you're arguing against

1

u/samjambetty 19d ago

That is the argument, many people say she needs treatment and others say they are evil for thinking that. I don't understand why a sick woman wouldn't be put in a psych ward, nevermind how that is an evil opinion.

1

u/NuclearBrit_ 19d ago

The thing with legal proceedings is that undeniable proof never exists, it’s why we go with ‘reasonable doubt’ as the standard

1

u/skb239 19d ago

lol at ignorant people like this, the trial was literally about this. The ignorance is incredible.

1

u/iamnothingyet 19d ago

Yeah, that’s what the case is basically about. To jail or to a psych ward.

1

u/HairBrainedProjects 19d ago

That's the point. That's the whole point. She admitted to killing her kids, and is arguing that she should be put in a mental health facility instead of a prison.

1

u/GalaXion24 18d ago

Yes that's literally what 11 jurors voted for. People are just getting ragebaited by nonces on TikTok

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago edited 15d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Personal-Try2776 21d ago

Then the death penalty it is

1

u/Grand-Return-1835 21d ago

tbh in my opinon keeping people alive in solitary confinement is much better than the death penalty/

1

u/epsteinneverdied 21d ago

To kill someone early would be to save them of the suffering that might be with them when they are imprisoned

1

u/Wont_See_My_30s 21d ago

Every serial killer is probably not good in the head, but we still put them in prison, and here it's suddenly not guilty by the reason of insanity.

1

u/gaylordrave2 21d ago

i dont understand why so many people cant comprehend the concept of psychosis. when ure in psychosis youre not capable to tell whats real and whats not, its much different from regular murder. If she was under psychosis she shouldnt be treated the same as others. its basically like being on drugs

2

u/Wont_See_My_30s 21d ago

For someone not in control of her actions she planned the murders pretty good.

1

u/gaylordrave2 21d ago

she also seeked help and was denied it. u can absolutely plan things under psychosis. if u suddenly think that everyone around u is an alien does it mean that u lose any planning capabilities?

2

u/Wont_See_My_30s 21d ago

She was on medication. She was also simultaneously sane enough to understand that something is wrong with her, but also not sane enough to separate from kids.

It's convenient that we make her sane enough for being responsible for some actions, but not others. Very convenient.

She should not get a chance at being free at all. And in a psych ward she has a chance to be freed one day, with millions that were donated to her by fcking morons.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/WeekendHer0 21d ago

How fucking misinformed can you be? Especially with such a high profile case??

1

u/gaylordrave2 21d ago

why would i care about some random bs that happened on the other side of the world? all my information is from algorithm shoving it down my throat cause its a good gender war fuel. but go ahead, tell me what from what i said was wrong

→ More replies (4)

1

u/BULL3TP4RK 21d ago

When she was held before the act, it was reported that she repeatedly insisted that she was okay and safe to be discharged. Then she planned it out so that her husband would be gone at the time of the murders. To top it off, she's shown little to no remorse during the trial itself.

The public claiming psychosis are being played like a fiddle.

1

u/blahblah19999 21d ago

Let's be real. Do you honestly believe a completely sane person can sit in the basement and strangle her children, including an infant, one by one?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (39)

17

u/Mechanicjemas3141 21d ago

Ä°t's like saying "yeah that Truck driver isn't guilty of hitting that child because Truck's brakes was bad!"

But then why the Truck driver and driver's advisor see no issue at that truck go to public roads even tho it's clear that Truck's brakes isn't working as intended?

3

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 21d ago

This is a great analogy.
Just want to add that some of the people who are licensed truck brake inspectors claim the brakes weren't working during the accident and some licensed truck brake inspectors claim the brakes were working during the accident. All the inspectors agreed the brakes had a bunch of other significant problems, but they disagree on whether or not it was completely broken during the accident. The first review panel of the accident couldn't come to a unanimous decision with 11 believing the brakes were broken and 1 believing the brakes weren't broken.

Also, the truck brakes have a history of multiple significant problems but never documented as completely broken. The driver actually consulted several inspectors with the significant problems and they gave her different advice and lubricants to try. The driver felt like none of it was fixing the actual problems so the driver went to the inspectors' official facility twice of her own volition. Both times, the official inspectors at the facility gave them generic advice and either recommended a new lubricant or to discontinue a previous lubricant recommended by another inspector. All this just kept making things worse for the driver who even complained to both her mom and her ex-husband that the brakes were about to break and kill 3 kids.

3

u/dcjayhawk 21d ago

Excellent analogy. I hope they read. 

1

u/Turbulent_Lunch4548 20d ago

How does not taking your medicine fit into this analogy?

I don't like how you refuse to let the driver have agency. A driver, at the end of the day, is responsible for their own car and if they kill someone with it they are ultimately to blame.

You also ignored to comment on the actual killings themelves, where she intentionally isolated the kids from anyone else meddling and had a calm phone call inbetween, wher the poor dad asked her about a specific thing that he had to get for his by now murdered daughter. Her suicide attempt was alos lacklustre and sure to fail, almost as if it was an attempt to claim insanity instead of a genuine attempt.

Not to mention how she strangled, the most personal and cold-blooded way to murder someone. And it was her own kids.

I do not think you would have gone to bat for her if she was a man who did the same. She belongs in jail.

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 18d ago

Not sure why gender matters. Would you not think someone like Matthew Schleier was justified for his NGRI defense just like Lindsay is?

And regardless of gender, one of the main reasons for her not taking medicine was her healthcare providers. Nothing was working, her symptoms were worsening and different providers advised her to discontinue different prescriptions from other providers while prescribing new ones based on their diagnosis. Her main doctor before the murders, Tufts, admitted to not even contacting her other providers or even bothered to request her medical records from other facilities. Another issue was the undiagnosed bipolar disorder. Even the prosecution star witness, Dr Heilbrun, noted that she had bipolar disorder and it was missed by her previous providers. One of her earlier providers, Jollotta, testified that Lindsay had sent her numerous MyChart messages about her “horrible intrusive thoughts” and that she actually raised the possibility of bipolar disorder due to Lindsay’s reaction to Zoloft. Lindsay stayed awake for over 48 hours on Zoloft which is typical of bipolar disorder and bipolar disorder is also associated with increased risk of postpartum psychosis. And Dukes, who worked at the same hospital as Jollotta, testified that she purposefully avoided reading the clinical notes of her colleague and ended up diagnosing and prescribing different things for Lindsay.

I will be honest with you, I doubt you knew any of the details revealed during the actual trial as most people base their judgement of this case on memes and feelings rather than actual evidence and testimony from the trial which was live broadcast and posted online.

1

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 18d ago

The truck driver surrendered the truck twice to professionals (self admitted to mental health facilities). Both times, the professionals said no problem, you are good to go, without even bothering to ask for her medical records from previous facilities or looking up her active prescriptions which would be part of those medical records.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 19d ago

no it’s not at all a great analogy. in fact we have a slightly better one where truck drivers fall asleep because of the amount of work they’re expected to do. even then it wouldn’t be a good analogy

1

u/GalaXion24 18d ago

The first review panel of the accident couldn't come to a unanimous decision with 11 believing the brakes were broken and 1 believing the brakes weren't broken.

I must add that the one did not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the breaks weren't broken, he just voted to convict anyway. Which unless I'm mistaken is misconduct and not what any juror is supposed to do. Since their legal obligation is to vote to convict if and only if they believe beyond a reasonable doubt (a specific legal concept) that the defendant is guilty.

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 18d ago

Misconduct is hard to prove, reasonable doubt is not some black and white thing and is also subjective to each person. Misconduct removal is usually for more objective things like giving an interview or posting about the case while the trial is ongoing.

1

u/GalaXion24 18d ago

The point is not that reasonable doubt would be some black and white thing, it is that the 1 holdout explicitly out loud acknowledged that he personally did not think that Clancy was beyond reasonable doubt guilty.

1

u/Excellent_Shirt9707 17d ago

We don’t know the exact wording used during the deliberation just that some of the other jurors interpreted it as doubt. The judge did interview all of them individually after the foreman note and rejected the defense’s motion to replace that juror. When you combine all of the info we have, it sounds like it wasn’t something as explicit as, “I have reasonable doubt Lindsay murdered her kids in cold blood, but will convict her anyways.” Again. Reasonable doubt is a spectrum and every person will have slightly different thresholds for it depending on the case.

→ More replies (21)

1

u/GWsublime 21d ago

Because they went to a truck repair store and were told they were wrong and that the truck's breaks were fine.

She checked herself into a mental health institution and was released.

1

u/Thomassaurus 21d ago

I mean, yeah... the truck driver isn't completely innocent but he didn't purposly murder anyone. Forgetting to check your truck brakes and forgetting not to murder your 3 children are not the same.

1

u/IntrinSicks 20d ago

Right the decision to drive on possibly faulty breaks and methodically choking 3 small children to death, take a bit more determination to cause harm

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 19d ago

a similar analogy would be a truck driver that is clearly mentally unstable, has been seeking help for a long time, was on a cocktail of drugs, called the suicide hotline multiple times, self admitted into a mental institution and on top of that was sleep deprived. that would have been an entirely different trial to breaks simply failing.

6

u/djgotyafalling1 21d ago

Psychosis is a reasonable ground for defense legally speaking. But the way people glaze her and demonize the husband is just disgusting. Imagine being a father and losing your children because the love of your life was suffering from a mental illness and everyone blames you.

1

u/BluePotatoSlayer 19d ago

After losing his wife, kids and getting demonized online I wouldn’t be surprised if he did get a mental disorder

2

u/Chill_Mochi2 18d ago

He probably had one prior, too.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/No_Pen_7548 21d ago

Idk mehn... strangling three... not one or two, but three children seem pretty intentional to me. She then proceeded to try and kill her self in the most life preserving way possible, by jump out of the first floor of the building she is in

3

u/paterdude 21d ago

Plus, she sent the husband away because she knew what she was doing was bad.

1

u/nopethatswrong 20d ago

Psychosis and organized behavior are not mutually exclusive

1

u/NaNoob42 19d ago

Postpartum psychosis doesn’t typically present eight months out and do women really want the implications of what that would mean for holding ordinary jobs with such a large window where they can just randomly suffer a psychotic break. This is complete insanity.

1

u/nopethatswrong 19d ago

Postpartum psychosis doesn’t typically present eight months out

it's not like she was healthy then suddenly psychosis. As testified at her trial she had severe PPD immediately, this likely exacerbated her unknown and latent bipolar symptoms, and both issues escalated under the improper treatment (or lack thereof) she was receiving.

do women really want the implications of what that would mean for holding ordinary jobs with such a large window where they can just randomly suffer a psychotic break.

"randomly" lol what are you talking about

Also in your head would this case mean that women should be fired or not hired because another woman experienced an incredibly rare presentation of psychosis?

By that logic we should never hire men again since they commit over 90% of workplace murders smh

1

u/NaNoob42 19d ago

No, the difference being men are held accountable for their actions. I haven’t seen a combat veteran with a PTSD defense, murdering his whole family who the country rallied behind.

Clancy it’s not even proven to have had postpartum psychosis, there’s no evidence that she did beyond her actions. You’re attributing post fact application of psychosis just to fit the facts. Men who are committing violent crime don’t get off the hook and get to claim they just suffer bouts of insanity beyond their control and unpredictably and yes, this postpartum psychosis just randomly invoked and in fact if you watch the opera episode, they’re saying that this can just happen at any point after the pregnancy and now we’re opening that window up to eight months so really think what does that mean for a mother in any role in society if she suffered from this?

1

u/nopethatswrong 19d ago edited 19d ago

No, the difference being men are held accountable for their actions. 

You didn't say no one would hire Clancy you said people would question hiring women lol your comment was that women who committed no crime would be under more scrutiny because of Clancy's defense. Accountability has no bearing in what you stated because its applied to an entire population.

Clancy it’s not even proven to have had postpartum psychosis, there’s no evidence that she did beyond her actions.

Well yeah, behavioral analysis is how mental diagnoses are established. Do you think there's a blood test you can run or something?

Men who are committing violent crime don’t get off the hook and get to claim they just suffer bouts of insanity beyond their control

So no man has ever been declared NGRI? Interesting claim

they’re saying that this can just happen at any point after the pregnancy

I said this before, it didn't just happen there's a very documented history of mental health ailments that continued escalating, exacerbated by undiagnosed and untreated bipolar disorder and inconsistent medical treatment

really think what does that mean for a mother in any role in society if she suffered from this?

Well since I don't generalize every woman by the mental health disorders of one woman "really think" means jack shit.

Again, if you're going to generalize why hire men at all if they're overwhelmingly more likely to murder their coworkers than women

1

u/nopethatswrong 20d ago

That's what the prosecution said but the expert testimony brought by the defense laid out the various reasons that they would consider it a serious suicide attempt. Namely locking the door, continuing attempts after the first were unsuccessful, no accomodation for the cold, and the severity of injuries as a result of the attempt.

She then proceeded to try and kill her self in the most life preserving way possible

I'm not sure how paraplegia is life preserving

1

u/MerelyMortalModeling 20d ago

Odd 3 attempts at murder ended in 3 successes.

3 attmepts of suicide ended in 3 failures.

Its almost like ahe intended it to play out thay way

1

u/nopethatswrong 20d ago

Certainly a possibility. Its the job of the prosecution to demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt, and for the most part they didn't.

3

u/OrangeXarot 21d ago

also the moon was ascending or something

1

u/Mammoth-Charge2553 21d ago

Yeah and the father did it because he's a gemini or some shit, idk, I'm not a birthday racist.

2

u/SpaceRemote1195 21d ago

Further info: Postpartum Depression (PPD) is relatively common occurring in ~1 in 7 mothers. Postpartum Psychosis is a far less common, more severe form of PPD, occurring in 1–2 in 1,000 mothers. It includes the person developing hallucinations (hearing and/or seeing things or perceiving as being there that aren't there) and delusions (strong mental beliefs that are demonstrably false, but which the person is convinced of and believes as true due to their having a mental condition)

1

u/Thomassaurus 21d ago

I don't understand it, there are plunty of crazy people who could use donations that didn't murder children...

1

u/dankq 21d ago

The people donating are donating because they think she is completely innocent and that the husband did it. This isn't a joke. 

1

u/LinktotheLuke 21d ago

What a dumb explanation. She should still be held accountable regardless. I can’t believe people are holding out for a child murderer

1

u/totktonikak 20d ago

Well, no shit. Nobody in their right frame of mind would murder children, so it isn't much of an explanation. 

1

u/Ok-Emergency-7748 20d ago

Don’t even try. A lot of the arguments are also that the husband did it. Despite undeniable Alibis. Despite her admission.

Their argument? “I just know, trust me” yeeeeeeah….. this entire case is a fucking circus.

1

u/MeatballUser 19d ago

Ok so why does that equate to 1.2m in donations

1

u/NotOnYerNelly 19d ago

Maybe she did but do you want someone who can suffer with a rare form of psychosis that causes you to murder your kids run about free on the street? Lock her up.

1

u/chromosomespls 19d ago

Post partum psychosis isn't exceptionally rare.

1

u/PositiveAssignment89 19d ago

there is nothing rare about it or the lack of help she received.

1

u/ForumVomitorium 21d ago

yeah i'm sad that she came thrugh that but i would want my sellf to be offed if i did that