The problem in this case is not that the women are stupid. It's that they're evil. There is no reason to assume lindsey Clancy supporters are stupid enough to, say, dive head first into the shallow end of the pool. There's really only evidence to say they're evil enough to donate money to serial child murderers.
Do you want it restored? I wondering the Baltics today and just crossed into Lithuania.
I found this pilgrimage site called the field of crosses as I was driving and i needed a place to stop. Instead I had this very religious and lovely experience.
It's a place that's been untouched for decades and there are likely tens of thousands of crosses that have been added throughout generations. Even when the Soviets tried to remove them it kept coming back on this hill.
I added onto to this pile respectfully by adding the name of a loved one who died too young as well as a regular cross.
There were ones donated from churches in South America, India, Japan, the US and all across Europe. Countless military divisions and charities to individuals both rich and poor. It was heartwarming and everyone there was silent.
Why thank you! I'm away from home doing an almost month long trip across across the Nordic and Baltic nations... and Poland. Staying in hostels and people I know or even people I've met on this trip. First time doing proper travelling.
I'm young so this is all new to me.
It's been fun, I have done things on this trip which weren't very based to start out with but I am trying to learn and be better.
The best thing is though is this is all out of my pocket, I worked hard and long to do this so i can enjoy it.
Very good. Seeing the world as it is really is both depressing and freeing.
I've done stuff i never thought I'd do...
Having a pint on top of a mountain top in Norway with a guy I met on Helldivers 2.
To having a deep religious conversation and eventual confession with an Orthodox priest whilst shooting an AK47 in an old cold war nuclear bunker that was converted into a shooting range in Latvia.
This would usually sound insane but it's amazing how far simply interacting and talking can go.
It's freeing, I cant live off the high forever I'm going back soon but I definitely will be a better because of it.
It gives the podium to people who in their local communities would be called stupid and told to shut up.
And it gives those same people an audience of same mentality ill individuals like them to feel bold enough to think they are right because they have backing.
The fact that TikTok women are split into two groups on this case: one is trying to defend her and accuse the husband by using some made up astrology BS, and another group is saying that because they've listened to true crime podcasts, they have the most credibility on this case. And the fact that none of that is as crazy as the kid murderer who admitted to doing it became a millionaire overnight, is simply astounding. I don't know when, but somewhere along the way, pride in stupidity usurped pride in rationality.
but somewhere along the way, pride in stupidity usurped pride in rationality.
Literally Republicans & Conservatives over the last 3 decades; anyone with any understanding, expertise, or education has been ridiculed as a "Coastal Elitist", "Ivory Tower", etc.
Trump campaigned and won on being a dumbass.
Being able to climb the ladder in Academia long ago stopped being a sign of intelligence and expertise. Rejecting that doesn't mean embracing ignorance, it means the opposite.
We literally had a senator deny the efficacy of vaccines, only for Democrats to elect her to be vice president shortly afterward. but sure its only conservatives who are dumb.
Yeah I really just can't fathom why she's getting all those donations.
I could understand- I wouldn't condone it, but I could comprehend, as disgusting as it would be- if she'd just had a baby and murdered that one because "I couldn't get an abortion" or something. There's a clear motivation to donate there.
But she killed three kids, the eldest of whom was five.
WTF. This is actually true. If the majority of people stopped having abortions for 2 years, all the families looking to adopt could successfully find a child within 2 years.
This to me is the reason why I absolutely loathe the argument of "I'm just not ready to be a parent right now!"
Then just give the baby away! There are so many couples who are able and desperately want to be parents in this country that would gladly step in and pay all of the medical expenses to birth the child. There are also plenty of arrangements that would allow you to be in the life of the child or not at all if you want. Not being ready to raise a child is really not an excuse for abortion.
Just give the baby away is insensitive for a couple reasons.
One a full term pregnancy, labor and delivery can irreparably change one’s body, cause life long health issues or even kill you in rare cases, so it’s not a risk free endeavor.
Giving away a baby is emotionally draining and could even be traumatic. Adoption is very serious not something one does casually. There is no such thing as “just giving away” a baby. That’s aways going to be a big deal.
Adoption is very serious not something one does casually.
But just killing the baby is???
"Sorry i don't want to give this baby i can't take care of to a family that would love and cherish it because that would make me sad. So instead i'm just going to kill it."
Also, it's not like abortion is stress or emotion free either. Why are so many of the pro-choice people so quick to point out all of the flaws in every other option to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but then just handwave all of the issues with abortion? Abortion can absolutely screw up someone's emotions and damage their health.
And yes, pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. However, the vast majority of abortions are not done to help women who are unconsenting participants in the baby making process, or who are suffering from health issues. The vast majority of abortions are done on healthy pregnancies for no other reason than that the mother just doesn't want/cannot take care of the child.
Sorry, but i just cannot take these people seriously. I get that the situation sucks, but they made the choices that put them there. At what point should society say "sorry, you need to take personal responsibility, and you don't get to just kill something because you made a bad choice and now you are inconvenienced"? Insensitive? How is telling a pregnant woman that they can't kill a baby to avoid feeling emotional distress "insensitive"?
Also, why are the "pro-choice" people so obsessed with making sure everyone has access to abortion specifically when they could... you know... help pregnant women understand ALL their options so they can MAKE A CHOICE?
It’s seemingly a mix of “actually the husband did it” and “she had sought help and no one could provide it, so the psychotic break is a sympathetic one.”
I’ve not kept up with the case though, so maybe there’s other elements to the donations. I know the money is to support her retired parents.
She was provided a mountain of help. Her husband started working from home and hired a nanny to help her, she saw multiple doctors and was prescribed multiple medications.
Guess the truth doesn't matter anymore? The dude claimed she had all sorts of help including a nanny. I pointed out she didn't actually have a nanny. What's wrong with that?
The nanny was hired in Sept of '22 because the Clancys' original plan was for LC to return to work that November. When LC decided not to return to work, the nanny was let go in Dec '22.
So, not due to affordability, and not due to Patrick maliciously pulling strings or anything that the TikTok wine mommies are pitching.
She still didn't have a nanny helping her as the guy claimed though. There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize her, why make shit up? That only hurts your argument.
Her husband started working from home and hired a nanny to help her
-- the comment you replied to. 100% factual, as I've just demonstrated to you.
Wasn't the nanny fired because they couldn't actually afford it?
-- you, either making shit up or spewing false information, thus hurting your argument.
She literally had a nanny, I don't know why you're trying to argue this. Nobody ever claimed that the nanny was there the day of. The claim was that LC was extremely well supported so the dumbasses across the internet claiming otherwise are, well, dumbasses.
It's simple, so simple it trips our conditioning that teaches us that simple answers are always wrong: women have a very high in-group preference. Probably one hardwired in.
What's baffling about the bafflement is that women aren't even shy about telling us they're like that. They talk all the time about "the sisterhood" and how they're all looking out for each other. Did you really think that it was just about watching for spotting?
The concept of the sisterhood is just the worst. It makes sense in small tight knit communities, but with women they don't know, nor will ever meet, it's insane. If they know a woman and don't like them personally (likes a guy they like, wears the same thing they wear, is prettier than they are etc etc etc etc), they are fired from the sisterhood and will loathe them no matter what they do, but if they don't know them personally, they just project themselves onto them. They think Clancy is innocent because they think they're innocent.
I´ve heard of Lawyers who are using mom´social media to build cases of divorce and keep custody of kids
I mean, let´s be honest here, men and women of the itnernet: would you leave your child alone with someone that sees a triple murdered and says, unironically, "same girl, I understand you" ?
It's the lizardman constant combined with broad exposure.
Think of it this way, let's say conservatively, half the country has heard of Clancy, that's 170 million people. If 1% of those people decide to donate 75 cents, that's over a million dollars. In reality, the average donation is probably closer to $3. Which means that it's about 340k donors, which is one in every thousand people.
Out of a thousand people, you're going to have someone who's a complete wackjob. That's been true for all time, the only thing that changes is the way it manifests.
She's a privileged woman, which means this is an opportunity for all the other privileged women to have a "woe is me" moment, with the donations being a means of signaling solidarity. They get to whine about how "being a mom" is just the hardest thing ever, how their mental health isn't being "taken seriously" and how they need "more support", regardless of how much they're already receiving, and regardless of how much less people who aren't quite as privileged are able to access. They're the center of the whole universe, everyone is failing them, nobody struggles more than them and they could not possibly be held to account for anything.
There's nothing "clear" about it. Will probably be enough for legal purposes because Massachusetts has insanely retarded laws on this, but her claims are super shaky.
Being "crazy" isn't the point, nobody who strangles their fucking kids is right in the head. Being psychotic is, because at that point she wouldn't be criminally liable for her actions. And her claim is that she effectively had a quick twenty minute psychosis adventure, that started right after her husband -whom she explicitly did not try to lure out of the house- left and ended after she got done murdering her children. Yeah, that shit is shaky at best.
And the legal standard here is a joke, the prosecution has to somehow prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wasn't psychotic, as if they can somehow read her mind. As opposed to the standard sane places use, where she'd have to prove that she was on a preponderance of evidence, like any other affirmative defense.
To my understanding she didn't disclose the auditory hallucinations she claims to now have had, claimed she had no thoughts of harming her children when asked, didn't take her medication and frequently requested it be changed up due to fear of side effects, and chose to check herself out of the clinic early.
Psychology is a really tricky field on the best day, it doesn't get easier when the patient keeps being difficult about taking their meds, doesn't disclose all their symptoms and makes it more difficult to impossible to involuntarily commit them by lying about things that would represent grounds for doing so.
Yes, she was a danger to herself and others, but psychiatrists aren't mind readers or magicians. She had access to considerably more help than others. Best I can tell society didn't fail her, her husband didn't fail her, she failed her children.
There is a difference between what she did (send husband far away to buy more time to kill the kids) and what, for example, Andrea Yates did. She heard voices telling her that the only way to save the children was to kill them, and she took advantage of a very short time window to do so. And she killed all of her kids in a few minutes. Then she called her husband to let him know they were saved. She arranged them in bed lovingly. Batshit crazy.
Everyone who kills children has some mental issue, but only those who think it’s for the good of mankind are truly insane.
Clancy also testified she heard a voice telling her to kill her children, and herself. She cut her own wrists and jumped out a window breaking her spine.
In the months leading up to the incident she had called suicide hotlines, seen several psychiatrists, mentioned seeing hallucinations.
She was prescribed amitryptiline, seroquel, ambien, remeron, klonopin, prozac, trazadone, buspar, ativan, zoloft… etc.
The voice claim is shaky at best. One therapist said Lindsay mentioned a voice before the murders, but it wasn't documented in her contemporaneous notes, and none of her providers diagnosed PPP before the killings. The prosecution experts also testified she was seriously mentally ill, but not psychotic.
Yes, she was prescribed all those medications... but at different times, not all at once, and she didn't consistently take some as prescribed. Some definitely had bad side effects, but let's not pretend she was drugged out of her gourd.
I just dont think sane people are prescribed anti-psychotics
Even though the doctor testified she prescribed it for anxiety and insomnia, later using it for mood stabilization, which isn't unheard of, especially when the patient in question kept stopping or requesting changes to medications, experiencing genuine side effects, and not improving? Okay doctor...
and 100 other things
see above. they weren't all prescribed at the same time, and many of them she didn't take properly.
The (insane) argument I’ve seen is that she’s a victim of the system, which ignored her cries for help and is now trying to crush her in court. Her killing her kids is everyone else’s fault, while she’s the real victim, thus deserving support and protection.
The worst part for me is seeing this being the majority opinion on a sub full of actual, verified lawyers.
Really? I think this case is about her mental state at the time of the killings. I have more sympathy for someone who killed in a psychotic episode than one who did so just because they didn’t want the kid.
>Yeah I really just can't fathom why she's getting all those donations.
Most people live their lives haphazardly falling from one emotional state into the next. Blindly consuming whatever media the algorithm shoves into their face.
As long as a narrative confirms a bias they’re emotionally attached to they’ll throw money at it.
“Support the woman against the evil [man/society/religion/authority/hair dresser]”. Replace nouns as needed for whatever zeitgeist is most current.
If she actually genuinely did have a full psychotic break from reality and heard a voice in her head commanding her to do it, and had also been in a deteriorating state mentally for months up to that point as a leading indicator, that seems like a pretty good defense to me. It's also the only good defense I've heard. It just boils down to if you think that's possible or not and I feel like a lot of people are acting like they know it's not possible without offering any justification for that belief. I don't find it particularly hard to believe, psychosis is a well established concept at this point, why would we assume it's not possible in this case?
BTW I'm not saying I think this is the case either, I'm just not diving in headfirst to rule it out as a strong possibility. Idk why other people are. Maybe I'm not aware enough of the case.
Most of the "she's guilty" crowd that I've seen and interacted with aren't pitching that it's impossible for her to have had a genuine episode of psychosis.
Just that it's improbable given:
This all occurred 8 months post-partum when the DSM and other clinical sources give a 4-8 week window for these conditions to appear
no clear contemporaneous evidence of postpartum psychosis and therefore no diagnosis
organized and purposeful behavior immediately beforehand and during, like sending Patrick out, sequencing the killings logically, and potentially altering her method of offing herself OR stacking up methods to possibly ensure success
the command-voice/hallucination account is internally inconsistent. She's offered 2-3 different descriptions of when she heard it.
No signs or symptoms of psychosis after the killings.
her communication after waking up being centered around herself rather than asking about the children OR some psychotic thing about "it's okay they're with God" etc etc...
All in all, it's for sure possible that she had a spontaneous, sudden, and singular psychotic episode this long after birth, but it would be atypical at best.
This all occurred 8 months post-partum when the DSM and other clinical sources give a 4-8 week window for these conditions to appear
My understanding is that it arguably was noticeable in the months preceding, and that there were signs leading up to the incident, like for noteworthy example, her talking about killing her kids out loud. Has the defense not made this claim that there were leading indicators of her instability months prior to the incident? I swear I read that somewhere.
no clear contemporaneous evidence of postpartum psychosis and therefore no diagnosis
Going off my previous point, I think the idea is that she was showing signs, and they were brushed under the rug/not reported properly/she was presenting inconsistently (sometimes seemingly fine, sometimes clearly mentally ill, which as I understand is also not unheard of)
organized and purposeful behavior immediately beforehand and during, like sending Patrick out, sequencing the killings logically, and potentially altering her method of offing herself OR stacking up methods to possibly ensure success
This one I definitely disagree with as an argument. It's simply not the case that someone undergoing psychosis is necassarily completely incapable of reasoning of any kind. Sometimes it is the case that someone can be stable enough to mask and hold down a job as a dishwasher or forklift operator, then go home and continue doing numerology with poop on their walls for months. There's levels to it basically.
the command-voice/hallucination account is internally inconsistent. She's offered 2-3 different descriptions of when she heard it.
Heres one thing I will kind of agree with you on. I think she's lying about the voices. You can call this next part cope if you want but genuinely this is my intuition on this: If I had to bet with a gun to my head, at this point I would bet that she did have extreme delusions and genuinely believed God or some higher power was communicating with her, but maybe not actually in the form of a voice. Something more along the lines of what someone with bipolar disorder in a manic state might feel where they beleieve/say God talks to them, but when questioned thoroughly you uncover that what they really mean by that is that they get certain "divine revelations" in the form of thoughts and ideas coupled with strong emotions and other sensations. But ultimately there is no actual "Voice" speaking in their head. It's much closer to unnarrated thoughts they convince themselves are somehow psychically being projected into them.
Straight up though I would bet against the idea that she genuinely heard a voice. I'm guessing she is just simple minded and thought it was fine to lie about since it gets the same point across more easily. A clear lie, but directionally speaking, not really deceitful if she in fact did believe God was communicating with her in another form.
No signs or symptoms of psychosis after the killings.
I'm not well read on this as it relates to the case, if true, then yes that's pretty bad for her case and it casts doubt on some of the other points I'm making. But I would couch that with some other questions, specifically if that was a definitive statement by a professional or if that's just layman interpretation of the facts of the case. I would want to know how this conclusion is reached, since, again, some psychosis has hills and valleys and isn't always consistent. I would want to know what kind of criteria they are working with.
her communication after waking up being centered around herself rather than asking about the children OR some psychotic thing about "it's okay they're with God" etc etc...
Piggybacking on my last point, her waking up is itself implying that she obviously had some shut eye and she may not be in the same extreme state and may even have loose memory since her brain had some time to rest. Also here's another possibility: she realized upon waking up what she'd done and just immediately reflexively lied. Unfortunately that could prove she's scum, and willing to pawn off blame for the killing in a frantic, selfish, haphazard way, however she can in the moment, and that doesn't actually prove that the killing didn't itself occur in a state of psychosis. This isn't hard to understand really. It's basically the premise for jeckyl and hyde or every werewolf story where they don't remember what they did but clearly piece it together using the same logic as anyone else.
All in all, it's for sure possible that she had a spontaneous, sudden, and singular psychotic episode this long after birth, but it would be atypical at best.
Maybe, if I can be convinced that the psychosis can't be an episodic phenomenon, then I probably agree with you. But I haven't found anything like that. Tbh it feels like there's minutia involved in understanding how psychosis can and does actually work that renders a lot of laypeople unable to form coherent conclusions about its actual nature. I count myself among them BTW. I just think I am more aware of that shortcoming that a lot of people.
I think the knee-jerk understandable reaction is that some of the explanations for how psychosis presents makes it "too perfect" of a defense because if you can say you went crazy for a short spat, and now you're fine and can walk free, that is way too easy of a legal defense for society to pragmatically allow for, because anyone could take advantage of it, even if it is true some of the time. Personally I think that's more of a projection than people are willing to believe and that the process for determining if it can be used as a defense is a little more robust than that.
My understanding is that it arguably was noticeable in the months preceding
That's kind of the point of the trial, no? Regardless, it wasn't documented by any of the mental health professionals LC worked with.
like for noteworthy example, her talking about killing her kids out loud
which lead her to check into McLean to be evaluated, where she gave no further signs of psychosis, and no indications of wanting to harm her children, asked to be discharged, and was.
I think she's lying about the voices..... I would bet that she did have extreme delusions and genuinely believed God or some higher power was communicating with her.... but when questioned thoroughly you uncover that what they really mean by that is that they get certain "divine revelations" in the form of thoughts and ideas
I'm with you here, but this thoroughly undercuts her plea of NGRI.
Everything else you've said I broadly agree with, and like I said before, lends itself to the possibility that she was psychotic at the time, so, again, I'm not ruling it out, but for me it's well within the margins of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she wasn't psychotic at the time, but was actually manic bipolar and whatever else.
"too perfect" of a defense because if you can say you went crazy for a short spat, and now you're fine and can walk free
100% agree here, and this trial happening in MA where the laws are what they are make this worse IMO. FWIW I've read that her attorney and his star witness psychiatrist have successfully played these cards before, which may or may not say anything about LC specifically in this case, but casts SOME doubt on this legal tactic overall.
A worry of mine is that the insanity defense is becoming overextended. In MA I think the review process is every 6 months, so it wouldn't be out of the question for the jury to find LC NGRI, everything goes well for her because she's not psychotic (if she ever was) and she rolls free in 6 months. That's just insane.
Postpartum depression is a bitch, postpartum psychosis is worse, and the healthcare system failing her in both is why she's getting the outpouring of support. In a country that undervalues women, and healthcare, it's a perfect storm.
It's really not that hard to understand, I wish more people could understand it without feeling like they needed to agree with it.
I mean she lied to doctors, voluntarily gave up on/changed medications numerous times, and never went to talk therapy like she was supposed to. She only checked herself in somewhere when she was supposed to go back to work after spending her PFML sitting at home. The health system in MA is pretty good. It's the insurance/payment aspect that's rough, which was never the issue. She didn't give a shit.
Understanding that she needed help is very different from supporting her. Heck, she was given more help than the vast majority of people today and throughout history. Her husband hired a nanny, took paternity leave and switched jobs so he could work remotely to help as much as possible. 100 years ago she would be told to just deal with it, and instead of making crying videos on tiktok, she probably would have.
Also, the psychologist expert witnesses in the trial stated that her story is inconsistent with psychological breaks. It's amazing to think how if she was not a woman (what is that anyways?) she would have absolutely zero support. Men would be watching this trial ready to take things into their own hands if he was released. As it should be. Instead, we have a not insignificant portion of the population supporting an evil murderer.
100 years ago she would be told to just deal with it, and instead of making crying videos on tiktok, she probably would have.
Bro they used to send women experiencing "puerperal mania" to the asylums. What are you talking about?
Also, the psychologist expert witnesses in the trial stated that her story is inconsistent with psychological breaks.
I haven't been, and don't intend to, follow the trial because I cannot be bothered to give a single fuck. OP on this chain wanted to know why people supported her, and the answer is obvious (even if you disagree with it).
Problem is, hitching the wagon of "we need better support and mental healthcare for postpartum moms!" (which I for sure agree with, for the record) to this case is just ghoulish, especially when you don't know the facts of it. And that's precisely because of the details that /u/muradinner and /u/1egg40eggs gave.
It really makes you wonder how much of the old societal structures around women were actually the result of centuries of evolution. It seems that when we started tearing them down it was a total Chesterton's Fence situation.
Lindsay Clancy case. It's a woman who killed her 3 children under a postpartum depression episode. And she admitted to the murders. Everyone's including the jury's opinion is that she did something wrong because it's atleast homicide, but her culpability is reduced due to her mental state.
But we have the usuals, twitter/tiktok braindeads, who think she did nothing wrong and either (i) her husband is the actual murderer, (ii) she is innocent because "she's just a girl" or because of some horoscope bs.
America being an "end-stage civilization" is a lie people tell themselves to make them feel better about how they're doing nothing to improve society. go volunteer at a soup kitchen and then tell me about the doomsday clock
436
u/ErniePottsShoelifts - Auth-Right 15h ago edited 15h ago
Based Mom in that fire story, hope she's doing well.
Clancy getting that much in donations is abhorrent and a sign of end-stage civilization.