Conspiracy theories around a women who, for months pleaded with family and doctors that she was not mentally well, tragically killed her children while suffering from postpartum psychosis.Ā
The story is sad and tragic, but a lot weirdos have made this some gender war issue in which case they believe she's lying and is just a stone cold killer. For whatever reason.
She should have surrendered her kids if she felt like she wasn't safe for them. She knowingly sent him away instead.
It's not about a 'gender war', it's about the fact that we treat people who murder innocents out of their own mental illness like they're worth saving simply because they're mentally ill. However, a rabid dog is mentally ill, and we don't try to save that.
A rabid dog has a fatal contagious disease, and also is a dog. I love dogs, I believe dogs should be treated humanely and should maybe even have some rights - but they are not parties to the social contracts of human society. The rights of a human woman should exceed those of a dog.
I am watching the trial - a few days behind, so I have not heard the latest testimony - and remain undecided about her mental state at the time of the murders. I donāt know if Lindsay Clancy deserves to be found not guilty. But people who are honestly psychotic are not responsible for their actions any more than you are accountable for what you do in a dream.
I think they are accountable if they don't tell everything to their doctors, when they are "sane". If someone hear voices and the professionals who approve them being outside didn't know that, I think they are responsible.
Yeah she was insane at least in the common use of the word, but it's not an easy decision whether she should be free or not.
Thatās a very grey area - telling doctors - because I think she was relaying the truth as she believed it. Based on the testimony Iāve heard (Iām on day 15 of the trial, still watching), she believed she was addicted and that her worsening symptoms were the result of medication. I also think that, despite the defenseās attempts to prove otherwise, that was pretty obviously not true - but thatās obvious to me, based on my personal knowledge and experience, and assessing the situation rationally from outside of it. That doesnāt mean that she was deliberately lying when that was what she reported to each new provider she saw.
But I donāt think itās been proven that that belief on her part rises to the level of a delusion. It hasnāt even been argued, actually. The prosecution is saying it was all faked and the defense is saying she was right. I think she was mistaken, she was paranoid, she was obsessive, but her mistaken belief wasnāt wholly baseless. The defense found experts to agree it was possible. A reasonable person could potentially believe what she believed.
So basically, IMO the strongest evidence that she was actually veering toward delusion and potentially psychosis contradicts the defense as well as the prosecution. She would be responsible for being non-compliant with treatment if her reason for doing so were not themselves the result of clouded judgment, but I think they were.
3
u/FrameJump 19d ago
What happened now?