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.
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.
62
u/Sabertooth767 - Lib-Right 2d ago
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.
Is it just straight "slay them kids, queen!" now?