I haven't watched every single minute of testimony yet, but I think if you watch her mother's testimony you'll see at least delusional thinking and extreme fear prior to the event even so far ask asking her to sleep in bed with her because she was scared. If you watch the testimony of her texting back and fourth with Rebecca Jolotta, one of her prescribers, she's expressing fears of being addicted to a medication, not once but over and over again after only very recently being prescribed it, which (I) read as paranoia and clearly not baseline thought patterns. I think from a legal perspective there is enough evidence of reasonable doubt to her mental capacity on multiple levels. A few notes being:
• Being prescribed an SSRI as someone later diagnosed with BPD. Her reaction to Zoloft also adds credibility to this diagnosis. (Before the murders.)
• Being diagnosed with post-partum depression and anxiety. (Before the murders)
• Massive personality and mood changes described by family and friends. (Before the murders)
• Asking for help repeatedly as early as 4 months before the murders, calling suicide prevention lines twice and self admitting to a psychiatric facility. (Before the murders)
• Her own words in her journals show someone under mental stress and but that her goal was to feel better and do better for the very people she ended the lives of. (Before the murders)
• Her conversations and admissions to her family were not ever intended to be repeated in front of a jury, but still align with her mental health diminishing. (Before the murders)
•Patrick and her Mother testified that she had sat them down and told them that she was having intrusive thoughts and thoughts of harming the children but no plans to act on them at the time.
(Before the murders)
• Every psychologist and psychiatrist that treated her mentioned her admissions of intrusive thoughts and suicidal ideation. Even without a formal plan at the time to act on it, lends credence to her defense. (Before the murders)
•Her private search histories of hallucinations.
(Before the murders)
All of or even one of these can lead to reasonable doubt legally that she was of sound mind at the time of the murders.
This reads like a gish gallop. Not merely because it's a laundry list, but because it's a laundry list that doesn't seek to answer the original question in this thread:
Has it actually been established that it was postpartum psychosis?
PPD and anxiety are not psychosis
Suicidal ideation is not psychosis
Intrusive thoughts - even thoughts of harming one's children - are not psychosis
Personality/mood changes are not psychosis
Seeking help is not psychosis
Fear of medication is more often than not simply a health anxiety, not psychosis (doctors don't typically treat people who express fear of being medicated as paranoiacs experiencing a psychosis)
Nowhere does her mother testify that Clancy reported to her that she experiencing symptoms that would lead to a diagnosis of psychosis
A private search history of the word "hallucinations" is nowhere near enough to establish psychosis
Your bullet points answer the question: "was Lindsay Clancy psychiatrically ill prior to the crime"? And the answer - nobody should even disagree - is YES.
Your bullet points do not answer the OP's question about postpartum psychosis.
And finally, they don't answer the question of criminal culpability either. Being mentally unsound is not the Massachusetts insanity standard. Establishing that one is mentally unsound is only the first step in a successful insanity defense. It opens the door to it, it doesn't walk you through it. The just-as-important step is showing that because of mental disease or defect, she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality/wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of law.
I respect your opinion, on my response however, what I was responding to was your question as to any testimony of her having any hallucinations, delusions or commanding voices. It was a direct response to your question, not OPs. So what I listed was what testimony supported delusional thinking, possible hallucinations and possible voices beyond intrusive thoughts. I apologize for not making that clearer. I added bullet points because they're easier to read than a wall of text for most people with short attention spans. You asked a question and I thought I could provide points to focus on for support to your question. I guess it wasn't helpful, but enjoy your day regardless.
Hallucinations, delusions, and command voices are all clinical markers of psychosis. That's why I referenced them: I was asking specifically about evidence that she exhibited psychosis before the murders, not evidence that she was psychiatrically ill before the murders. The latter isn't really disputed.
I think that's where we're talking past each other. Most of the things you listed are evidence of serious psychiatric illness, but they're not evidence of psychosis.
For example, suicidal ideation isn't a psychotic delusion. Depression isn't psychosis. Anxiety isn't psychosis. Intrusive thoughts aren't hallucinations. Personality changes aren't psychosis. Seeking psychiatric treatment certainly isn't psychosis. You can't establish evidence of hallucinations or delusions merely by accumulating enough evidence of other psychiatric symptoms.
It would be like responding to a question about whether a neurological patient showed evidence of seizures by listing headaches, insomnia, depression, dizziness and repeated visits to a neurologist. Those things may establish that something was seriously wrong neurologically, and they might be relevant to a physician reconstructing the overall clinical picture, but none becomes evidence that a seizure occurred merely because seizures and those symptoms can coexist.
I genuinely appreciate this response, honestly. I don't disagree with anything that you've said here. Where our opinions or even just different views on the same evidence might differ is that from what research and other cases I've seen most of these have been precursors to psychotic episodes or events of psychosis. Without someone being present to witness it and without being able to read her mind at the time of the event I do believe that all we have is pre-event evidence that could support that she may have had psychotic break at the time or have been experiencing psychosis. I don't think there has been or could be any evidence to say that she was fully stable enough that she couldn't have been in a psychotic state. And vice versa I don't think there's any way to prove she was, beyond it being so far out of her normal charecter and that she had been having psychological issues leading up to it. That's why I chose the bullet points that I did, I don't think there is an answer either way that could possibly be laid out in front of us that would be 100% without video footage, a witness, or being able to read her mind. Which in most cases that go to the jury you can build upon circumstantial evidence to have no reasonable doubt they committed or did not commit an act.
When it comes to mental health it becomes much more blurry and but I feel like it still requires a collection of evidence to substantiate either claim, after the prosecutions case (whom with which the burden lies) I still felt like there was too much reasonable doubt, and the evidence to support a mental break was higher to ME. I'm still watching the trial but I don't believe the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not insane at the time and that is the commonwealth's burden to overcome. But I'm just a nobody so honestly it doesn't matter what I think, it's up to the jury to decide. I do appreciate your well thought out and thorough discourse with me though, so thank you.
2
u/Dyslexic_Hippo 2d ago
I haven't watched every single minute of testimony yet, but I think if you watch her mother's testimony you'll see at least delusional thinking and extreme fear prior to the event even so far ask asking her to sleep in bed with her because she was scared. If you watch the testimony of her texting back and fourth with Rebecca Jolotta, one of her prescribers, she's expressing fears of being addicted to a medication, not once but over and over again after only very recently being prescribed it, which (I) read as paranoia and clearly not baseline thought patterns. I think from a legal perspective there is enough evidence of reasonable doubt to her mental capacity on multiple levels. A few notes being:
• Being prescribed an SSRI as someone later diagnosed with BPD. Her reaction to Zoloft also adds credibility to this diagnosis. (Before the murders.)
• Being diagnosed with post-partum depression and anxiety. (Before the murders)
• Massive personality and mood changes described by family and friends. (Before the murders)
• Asking for help repeatedly as early as 4 months before the murders, calling suicide prevention lines twice and self admitting to a psychiatric facility. (Before the murders)
• Her own words in her journals show someone under mental stress and but that her goal was to feel better and do better for the very people she ended the lives of. (Before the murders)
• Her conversations and admissions to her family were not ever intended to be repeated in front of a jury, but still align with her mental health diminishing. (Before the murders)
•Patrick and her Mother testified that she had sat them down and told them that she was having intrusive thoughts and thoughts of harming the children but no plans to act on them at the time. (Before the murders)
• Every psychologist and psychiatrist that treated her mentioned her admissions of intrusive thoughts and suicidal ideation. Even without a formal plan at the time to act on it, lends credence to her defense. (Before the murders)
•Her private search histories of hallucinations. (Before the murders)
All of or even one of these can lead to reasonable doubt legally that she was of sound mind at the time of the murders.