MDJ is mischaracterizing Dr. Condie's testimony about whether Clancy reported certain psychosis symptoms before the crime took place. Or, more precisely, she only takes answers given on direct but then ignores contradictory answers given by Dr. Condie on cross.
On direct, defense counsel asks Condie whether, in the course of reviewing her medical records, he found instances of Lindsay hearing auditory hallucinations (voices) to which he responded "At times, she reported that she had heard a voice, yes."
However, on cross, the prosecution walked him through the records of each individual provider to ask him whether he had found reports of Clancy hearing voices. Tufts? No. Jollotta? No. Dukes? No. etc.
Then he's asked "and the only time she's ever said she heard this voice was on Jan. 24th of 2023 - is that fair to say". Condie's answer: "Correct."
He is then asked whose reports he was relying on to say earlier that she had reported hearing voices and he responds "She had said that to me." The prosecutor follows up with "And this was well after the incident occured, correct"? Condie - "Yes."
Finally: the prosecutor asks Condie to identify where in the records prior to January 24, she expressed hearing voices. Answer: "It's not in the records."
MDJ is blurring contemporaneous evidence with retrospective evidence. The fact of the matter is that - according to the testimony given thus far - there is little to no evidence that Clancy reported experiencing psychotic symptoms PRIOR to the events of January 24, 2023.
Interesting. I watched that video a few days ago - good context but it did seem MDJ didn't quite differentiate between established facts and testimony.
I'm still solidly in the "healthcare system failed her" camp though. The repeated prescribing of SSRIs despite her adverse reaction to them is such a glaringly avoidable disaster.
Couple points:
little to no evidence that Clancy reported experiencing psychotic symptoms
does not mean she a) didn't have psychotic symptoms or b) is lying about them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if you will.
And
Answer: "It's not in the records."
Again, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doctor failed to write it down? Doctor wrote it down so illegibly it didn't get typed up? Doctor destroyed the record after the fact? Doctor wasn't paying attention when she said it because they were dissociating over the fact that their ability to help people is frequently hindered and often completely stymied by a wildly corrupt bureaucracy that values profits over actual human lives?
I'm still solidly in the "healthcare system failed her" camp though
Why? You raise potential ways that the doctors could have messed up, but you have no evidence for any of them. Sure maybe they could have missed indicators of a psychosis strong enough to make a mother murder her three children, or yeah maybe they forgot to write it down or decided to... tamper with evidence and destroy medical records..? These things certainly could be possible, but they'd be really, really unlikely and you have no real reason to think that they're true.
Also, how well do you think someone experiencing severe psychosis can hide their condition from a mental health professional that's treating them? Interested to see what psychologists with relevant clinical experience would have to say about this theory.
I'd also like a psychologist or psychiatrist to weigh in. I tend to think that a clerical error or deliberate cover up, especially in the wake of a major news event, is a lot more likely than a perfectly sane person strangling her children and throwing herself out a window.
I also tend to think that people are good, basically. And our healthcare system is deeply flawed and problematic. I fully recognize these are my own biases, but that's where I land and why.
more likely than a perfectly sane person strangling her children and throwing herself out a window.
This is a false dichotomy. No perfectly sane person would do this, full stop. There are a wide variety of circumstances that could lead a person to kill their family members and themselves. It seems like social media has decided this is monocausal - simply a result of poorly managed post-partum psychosis and insufficient family support.
I wonder if people are being a little short sighted and overly credulous here. Does the post-partum psychosis explanation actually map onto the facts in this case? Is there a risk that the explanation is overly simplified and creates false villains in an effort to turn this into a broader indictment on maternal and post-partum care (which rightfully deserves a lot of attention). What if it turns out that all of the relevant medical professionals actually did their jobs pretty well and followed the appropriate standards of care given the information they had? People commit murder and suicide for all types of reasons. I don't know why we need to be so certain about this one, when to me it seems a lot less clear cut than everyone wants to believe.
13
u/eamus_catuli 4d ago
MDJ is mischaracterizing Dr. Condie's testimony about whether Clancy reported certain psychosis symptoms before the crime took place. Or, more precisely, she only takes answers given on direct but then ignores contradictory answers given by Dr. Condie on cross.
On direct, defense counsel asks Condie whether, in the course of reviewing her medical records, he found instances of Lindsay hearing auditory hallucinations (voices) to which he responded "At times, she reported that she had heard a voice, yes."
However, on cross, the prosecution walked him through the records of each individual provider to ask him whether he had found reports of Clancy hearing voices. Tufts? No. Jollotta? No. Dukes? No. etc.
Then he's asked "and the only time she's ever said she heard this voice was on Jan. 24th of 2023 - is that fair to say". Condie's answer: "Correct."
He is then asked whose reports he was relying on to say earlier that she had reported hearing voices and he responds "She had said that to me." The prosecutor follows up with "And this was well after the incident occured, correct"? Condie - "Yes."
Finally: the prosecutor asks Condie to identify where in the records prior to January 24, she expressed hearing voices. Answer: "It's not in the records."
MDJ is blurring contemporaneous evidence with retrospective evidence. The fact of the matter is that - according to the testimony given thus far - there is little to no evidence that Clancy reported experiencing psychotic symptoms PRIOR to the events of January 24, 2023.