The Lindsay Clancy case
Until a day or two ago I had tried to mostly ignore this case because it was so extremely upsetting and deeply disturbing. But finally the din was so loud that I took a long look.
This post isn’t going to be an in-depth definitive analysis of the details. But it is my overall impression and summary after digesting quite a bit of the evidence. I expect that many of you may differ from my conclusions.
Clancy’s defense rests on a claim that she had post-partum psychosis, exacerbated by a cocktail of drugs she was given over time by a series of health practitioners. Her previous behavior as a mother seems to have been exemplary (this was her third child, and she had been a labor and delivery nurse). She kept a diary that documented her decline after the birth of her third child. She claims that voices directed her to kill her children, and the actual act was committed when she had sent her husband out for various errands.
Post-partum mental problems are very real and poorly understood although there are many theories. For most women who have them they amount to a short period of “the baby blues,” and even that can be quite serious for the person experiencing the problem although it is quite common. There are also a smaller number of women who experience a more profound post-partum depression. Then there is a much smaller but real number who experience post-partum psychosis, a break with reality. The second group (post-partum depression) is somewhat at risk, like any depressed person would be, for suicide. The third group (psychosis) is somewhat at risk for suicide and even homicide, often directed at the children. Fortunately, this type of aggression is rare.
The questions in this trial are basically twofold: (1) Was Clancy suffering from post-partum psychosis? (2) Does it matter in terms of her criminal responsibility? I think that the answer to the first question is “yes.” I’m not sure about the answer to the second, but it depends on one’s general attitude towards psychosis and criminal responsibility, which varies from those who think it never matters and that all people should be held equally responsible to those who think it absolves a person of all responsibility. I’ve written and thought about these questions for a long long time and I cannot answer them except to say I don’t fall into either of the extremes of opinion. In this case, I simply don’t know and am glad I’m not on the jury.
When I look at commentary online about the case, there’s an incredible range of opinion. There are, for example, people (usually women) who blame Clancy’s husband. I think that’s preposterous and to be condemned. There are those who completely absolve Clancy herself, which I don’t think is correct although I do believe that – as I said – she was truly depressed and then went into a psychotic state in part because of a bad reaction to the many drugs she was given in rapid succession. I think that her health practitioners did not do right by her. I think her suicide attempt was real and that her resultant paraplegic state is evidence of that. I believe that those who say she is a cold-blooded monster who deeply desired to murder her children and that her psychosis was a feigned excuse are also wrong; the evidence is very strong that this was not the case, and her planning was not inconsistent with a very real post-partum psychosis. And I think it’s a very sad and awful case, almost unbearable in its pathos.
Here’s a discussion of the drug aspect:
I don’t know what the verdict will be. But if Clancy is found not guilty by reason of insanity, it doesn’t mean she goes free. It means she is confined to a mental hospital, probably for many years. That does not satisfy those who consider her guilty, of course. Different states have very different laws for this sort of thing – some, for example, have a possible verdict of guilty with mitigating factors; they confine the killer to a mental hospital, but then when the perp is released there is also a prison term (not necessarily for murder, but a substantial sentence) to be served. As far as I can tell, Massachusetts is not one of those states and she probably would not be going to prison at all if found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her sentence by the judge, regardless of the verdict, is the memory of what she did. That doesn’t mean the court ought not to render a verdict, because it should. Whatever the judge decides will nevertheless only be an add-on to what she will have to live with for the remainder of her life.
Thanks for this summary, Neo. You are far more learned in this area than I am. I did not know that post-partum psychosis was a real condition, and I have not read the details, so I did not know she’d been fed a cocktail of drugs. (I knew about post-partum blues and depression; I had the former when my first baby kept me from being in bed for eight hours at a time for thirteen months. Exhaustion has an effect.)
Besides the horrible facts of the case, what’s truly awful is the number of mostly women demonstrating, blaming her husband, and generally trying to make publicity “wins” over the bodies of those poor little children.
>>It means she is confined to a mental hospital, probably for many years.
This isn’t necessarily the case. From what I am reading (including here), the defendant had a psychotic break at the time resulting in her killing the children. But at the very least, she is competent to stand trial.
Upon a jury verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the question for the judge would be: is she actually mentally ill *now* to the extent of being a danger to herself and others (assume for the moment she doesn’t get pregnant again)? If not, she could potentially be freed. It depends on how the state law reads – and of course what the judge is willing to do.
Even if she is initially confined, the court retains jurisdiction and will require (by statute) frequent follow-ups, with a psych report at each. Again, mentally ill now and, if so, a danger to herself and others? If no to either, legally she would be required to be released. The release could entail community mental health follow-up, conditions like no working with children, and so on. But, again, it all depends on her current mental status.
Another SSRI related atrocity IMO. A strong woman but overwhelmed, hit with mind altering drugs which disconnected her from all reality. A tragedy which cannot be reversed by punishment. Mercy is the proper response.
The children seem a little old for it to be literally “post-partum” psychosis, the youngest being seven months old. I am aware that some have defined “post-partum” to include things that can happen up to a year later, but so many things have been medicalized and/or redefined, as we were talking about with autism not long ago, and post-partum psychosis may well be one of these.
If Lindsay Clancy had strangled a dog that killed one of her children and said it was post-partum psychosis, or even just killed the family dog in a psychotic break, most of the same people saying she is not accountable for killing her children would be calling for her head.
Incidentally, in the far more common episodes of men killing their children, the number of people seeking to absolve them of accountability for stress or being overwhelmed or anything else can be counted on the fingers of one thumb. Aside maybe from their defense counsel, if the man in question didn’t already kill himself, that is. Even in this comment section, with the man who killed his children in Louisiana in February of this year, I don’t remember that anyone looked for any reason why he might not be accountable.
At any rate, the evidence of planning the killings is going to be a challenge for arguing that she wasn’t responsible for her actions. Once again, selective citation of facts to support a narrative is going to be key in media shaping of opinion.
My mistake, the Louisiana killings were in April this year. February was a different man killing his family, in Michigan.
She knew perfectly well she was strangling a child and not a poltergeist. Where is the indication she did not know it was wrong to strangle someone to death . The apposite penalty for a 32 year old individual who commits a triple murder is a firing squad or a scaffold.
==
BTW, if the Massachusetts court system were something other than a venue for lawyers to play footsie with each other, she’d have gone on trial two and a half years ago. If she wants to wage an insanity defense, the burden of proof should rest with her and not the state.
Art Deco:
The ability to tell right from wrong is not incompatible with psychosis. In most states, that has no legal bearing on an insanity defense.
2/ follow-up
In my state, theoretically the person could be released immediately. It looks like in Massachusetts there is a required initial 40-day period (first link). Relevant statutes:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section16
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVII/Chapter123/Section8
Per the latter: “(a) After a hearing, unless such hearing is waived in writing, the district court or the division of the juvenile court department shall not order the commitment of a person at a facility or shall not renew such order unless it finds after a hearing that (1) such person is mentally ill, and (2) the discharge of such person from a facility would create a likelihood of serious harm.”
You’ll recall the film As Good as it Gets. A publisher’s secretary tells the protagonist Mell Udall she loves his work. She: “How do you write women so well?”. He: “Easy. I think of a man. Then I remove reason and accountability”.
==
It’s a reflexive response of some women that only a brute would hold them responsible for anything. It’s a reflexive response of other women to offload responsibility on the nearest man or on some set of abstractions and imaginary characters. (See the column Barbara Ehrenreich penned for Time in August of 1995 making excuses for a young woman in South Carolina who had murdered her two young sons).
==
If you raise your daughter successfully, she understands personal agency and feels it when it is inconvenient to her.
The ability to tell right from wrong is not incompatible with psychosis. In most states, that has no legal bearing on an insanity defense.
==
I’m restating the M’Naghten Rule.
Why is her claimed drug-induced post-partum psychosis murderously directed at her own kids and not the adults in her life? Now well-off her drugs, what is her mental state? Is she grieving in sorrow and self-blame, or not?
Niketas:
The onset of her post-partum health problems was many months earlier. The escalating series of medications which may have tipped her over into psychosis happened over many months as well, as her condition worsened rather than improving.
If she wants to wage an insanity defense, the burden of proof should rest with her and not the state.
It does. MA requires the defendant to prove an affirmative defense, such as insanity, by a preponderance of the evidence.
@neo:The escalating series of medications which may have tipped her over into psychosis happened over many months as well, as her condition worsened rather than improving.
We’re not saying different things, I think. Prescription-drug-induced psychosis is not post-partum psychosis, they have different causes.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there indeed was psychosis.
She is not insane. Or mentally ill. This is not drugs. She’s playacting, same as her supporters, to see what she can get away with. Dim view, but that’s my take.
She’s a monster and deserves death.
The Internet is full of SSRI induced homicidal behavior. Often someone wiping out their entire family. Any practitioner using these drugs should know what can happen and use them in ways that minimize potential tragedy. This is a classic case of psychiatic drug induced temporary insanity.
“At any rate, the evidence of planning the killings is going to be a challenge for arguing that she wasn’t responsible for her actions.” Niketas Choniates
This has always been my problem with an insanity defense of any kind. It seems to me that most of these murders occur, not out in the open, but under cover of darkness–hiding the intention and act inself. The man who murdered the young woman on the subway–yes, he’s insane! Being able to think through, “I need to hide this from people who would try to stop me” seems to carry a measure of knowledge that it is WRONG!
Art Deco; Sharon W:
I am well aware of the McNaughton rule that Art Deco was referring to. It does not operate in Massachusetts nor in certain other states, although it does in some. The Clancy case is in Massachusetts
Nor does the rule have much relevance to true psychosis or planning under the sway of psychosis. It is more relevant, perhaps, to someone with profound mental deficiency.
Why is she defending herself? I sure wouldn’t.
It does not operate in Massachusetts nor in certain other states,
==
Of interest to counsel, not to me.
There was a very recent case of an MD who left her infant granddaughter unattended for hours in a parked car and she died. The MD has not yet been charged and may not be. There are a few dozens of cases like this every year, some people are charged with crimes and some not, almost never murder.
And that’s because it’s nearly always not intentional. I don’t know of a case where it was ever thought to be intentional. They don’t plan to leave kids in the car to die. Maybe they should be punished more, I don’t know. God knows there’s enough public-service messaging about it and in my neck of the woods an unattended dog in a car even for a few minutes gets a lot of attention, much less a baby.
But strangling your kids is intentional. And planning to strangle your kids is intentional. There’s a lot more understanding given to people who kill their children then you might at first think. And this case is not like those, not at all.
Interesting to compare the reactions to those of the Andrea Yates case. There were people blaming her husband, then, too.
And then there was the Casey Anthony case. I’ve run across an assertion that the very people who rush to exonerate Clancy were of the opinion that Anthony should get the death penalty on much weaker evidence.
@Mary Catelli:Interesting to compare the reactions to those of the Andrea Yates case.
There’s been others: Susan Smith in 1994 who blamed an imaginary black carjacker. She’s still in prison, her depression didn’t get her anywhere, and her children were not much older than Clancy’s. Diane Downs in 1983 also blamed a carjacker, even going so far as to shoot herself to substantiate her story. She’s still in prison, too.
From time to time these happen, thankfully rarely, far more rarely than men killing their own children. It’s just the very different public response. A woman killing her own children seems to benefit from a default assumption that something must be very wrong with her which makes it somehow not her fault, and this assumption does not operate for men who kill their children, or for a woman who kills a dog. Maybe these cases should all get different default assumptions, but I think it’s worth thinking over and knowing why rather than jerking knees.
The video Neo provided is an important one. That psychiatrist at least GOT CLOSE to clarifying that the patient MIGHT have an underlying neurologic disorder — or a new neurologic issue related to medications. When sertraline/ Zoloft first came on the US market, the INITIAL advertising noted that competitor paroxetine/ Paxil had the highest incidence of causing neurologic negativity, that competitor fluoxetine/ Prozac had the next highest incidence, & that sertraline/ Zoloft had the least. I only have been OVERHEARING what the TV programs say about the case (as my wife watches the programs), but I AM STRUCK by the apparent lack of professional questioning about (a) patient’s NEUROLOGIC status, (b) patient’s PRE-EXISTING level of EGO ORGANIZATION (ie, how close to or far away from loose/ illogical thinking she was, (c) patient’s ENDOCRINOLOGIC status (especially her estrogen status — & testosterone status — yes, women have some testosterone –, & whether she did or did not have any independently hormone-secreting cells (as in, for example, PCOS/ polycystic ovarian syndrome/ PMOS/ polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, & (d) patient’s nutritional/ MALNUTRITIONAL status (in that many women who have chronic/ long-term PMS/ premenstrual syndrome have both B6/ pyridoxine deficiency & magnesium deficiency (both of which can relate to either neurologic instability or emotional instability or both). This lady had three pregnancies; she is age 36; post-partum issues commonly appear after years of previous premenstrual syndrome issues AND both of those endocrine-related issues are more common after age 34 (& can be made worse by pre-existing neurologic issues as well as pre-existing ego-organization issues). Oy. A tragic case.
There were people blaming her husband, then, too.
==
Kathleen Parker. Again and again. Park Dietz was called as an expert witness by one of the sides and blamed an evangelical pastor with whom the couple had done some circuit riding. They hadn’t seen hide nor hare of this pastor in two years.
she was truly depressed and then went into a psychotic state in part because of a bad reaction to the many drugs she was given in rapid succession. I think that her health practitioners did not do right by her.
______
I have not seen enough discussion of that. I agree, the doctors here seem to bear some responsibility. But they will undoubtedly receive no punishment.
I am unclear on whether she is a monster or not. That’s for a trial.
Dolly Parton has died
If the drugs made her strangle her kids, slash her wrist and dive out the upstairs window will/should the state pursue charges against the prescribers and drug makers?? The defense seems to be shifting the blame towards them after all.
I have posted (here, I think as well as) elsewhere that the entire “insanity defense” in whatever form it may currently exist is wrongly focused on the actor rather than the act. The victim is just as dead whether the killer could tell right from wrong or not or acted under some “irresistable impulse” or in cold blood. Justice demands that the nature of the crime and the harm to the victim be taken into account. For example, if I rob another, notsithstanding I did so under some “insane compulsion,” I should be punished to the same extent as if I were completely in possession of my faculties. The only difference should be the place of punishment, viz., in a mental institution and not a state prison. Even for a first offense, the minimum period of incarceration would be the length of confinement, but release from confinement would be dependent on whether I am deemed “sane” and no longer a threat to myself or society. If I am still deemed “insane” despite the termination of my sentence, I would be compelled to remain in the mental institution pending further review, which would occur at intervals, perhaps annually or otherwise if the authorities find I have recovered my sanity in the meanwhile. If I happen to kill someone while “legally insane”, then I serve my time in a mental institution for the length of the minimum sentence provided for the degree of guilt; manslaughter up to first degree murder to be determined by the circumstances of the killing, not my “mental state” at the time of the act. That way, the degree of punihment fits the crime, rather than being determined by the actor’s alleged mentaal state. So, a woman who kills all three of her children by garroting them (think of what that entailed!) gets three life sentences (assuming capital punishment is unavailable) and serves the term out either in a mental institution or in prison if she “recovers” her sanity, but never has a chance to breathe free air again, unlike what the utterly stupid Massachusetts system provides, which is the distinct possibility that she will be out among society if declared “sane” by some psychiatrist in the next few years. I believe several states provide something like this with “guilty but legally insane” verdicts available. Actually, if I had my way, theentire concept of “legal insanity” would be eliminated form the criminal justice system. Who really cares if a criminal is imprisoned while “legally insane”? I certainly don’t and nobody else who has been victimized by a criminal should, either. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the victim and our societal pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of the guilty and needs correction. If Clancy is found “not guilty by reason of insanity,” we will see something akin to the “George Floyd effect” with an increase in such heinous crimes in the next few years until memories fade and the susceptible perpetrators (of which there appears to be quite a few, judging by Tik-Tok) find some other way to express their malicious intent.
Neo, I have come to your conclusion.
Post partum psychosis is, sadly, real;
her medical management is atrocious,
in that our entire mental health system is atrocious,
and living with what she has done is unimaginable.
Another MGH trained psychiatrist does the deep dive and explains it well here.
He starts about ten minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joAreHuo1pQ
I was able to follow it at 1.5 time. Those who prefer reading can feed it in to your AI site of choice.
Steve (Retired/recovering lawyer):
It seems you are arguing that mens rea should not be an element of the crime of murder and that there is no difference – for the purpose of the length of the sentence – between a sane person killing someone and a totally insane out-of-touch-with-reality person killing someone. For you, the only difference would be whether the person would spend part of that time in a mental hospital.
And yet there are only a few states that have no consideration of some sort of insanity or mental health rule at all, and as far as I know there are none that don’t take it into consideration psychosis as a mitigating factor in the severity of the sentence.
crasey:
They would not be criminally responsible, but the family is suing in a civil case.
I don’t think anyone is saying the drugs made her do it. But they are arguing that the health professionals were not properly monitoring her for side effects and worsening of symptoms that contributed to the state of mind she was in when she did it.
Eeyore (Is, Eum):
The trial started a month ago. There’s been plenty of testimony and evidence.
And the video I put in the post goes into a great deal of the drug history.
Also see my comment above this one, regarding possible punishment for the health professionals; there’s a civil suit, apparently.
Niketas:
If a man is psychotic and kills his children he gets the same legal treatment as a psychotic woman and can plead insanity. It’s a case by case thing. However, a man doesn’t get to plead post-partum psychosis because he doesn’t give birth.
And there is a big difference between a woman claiming post-partum psychosis and someone with evidence of it claiming it. Clancy has a very well-documented severe post-partum depression and months of declining mental health, plus drug treatment – all documented. She also has no other motives – such as an affair, for example. There is no reason to blame anything other than her psychosis.
Susan Smith, for example, was a completely different fact situation. She claimed mental problems but not postpartum depression. I don’t think there was any evidence for worsening symptoms. She had another motive: an affair with a man who didn’t want children. She did not harm herself, unlike Clancy who is now a paraplegic as a result of her self-harm. And Smith lied and lied about who did it and what happened.
Nothing like the Clancy case, really.
The thoughts of drug toxicity well-outlined in the link Neo provided to the psychiatrist are seriously persuasive. Adverse drug effects treated with increased doses of the same drug? Horrible. But we still lack facts on her current mental state. Her briefly-seen face seems flat. Is she drugged?
@neo:If a man is psychotic and kills his children he gets the same legal treatment as a psychotic woman and can plead insanity. It’s a case by case thing. However, a man doesn’t get to plead post-partum psychosis because he doesn’t give birth.
I disputed neither of these things, and neither of these things is responsive to anything I said. This is what I did say: “It’s just the very different public response. A woman killing her own children seems to benefit from a default assumption that something must be very wrong with her which makes it somehow not her fault, and this assumption does not operate for men who kill their children, or for a woman who kills a dog.”
And there is a big difference between a woman claiming post-partum psychosis and someone with evidence of it claiming it.
The timing is a tough sell, so many months after birth. If there’s really psychosis why is it being called “post-partum” psychosis. The argument appears to be well she had post-partum depression at one time, and she kept getting treated with this that and the other, and so seven months later we’re going to call it “post-partum psychosis” even though we’re at the same time arguing that it’s really because of the drugs she was prescribed in December when the baby was born in May.
To me it sounds like the defense is just using the words “post partum” psychosis because it’s more sympathetic. But there are a great deal of facts that have come out and it’s just not as simple as “post partum psychosis plus too many drugs”. Besides months since birth, for example, drugs prescribed versus drugs actually taken. Her own status as a health professional. Her seemingly normal calls and texts just a few minutes before the killings. Etc.
Niketas:
And I didn’t say you said that men don’t get to plead insanity. I am merely saying that the defense is open to them except for pleading post-partum psychosis, which you correctly pointed out is a defense available to some women and that people sometimes assume it applies to the women pleading it. It does indeed apply sometimes but certainly not every time it is pled.
a bad reaction to the many drugs she was given
That throws a different light on the whole affair.
Niketas:
She had clearly documented post-partum depression and it can turn into psychosis. The post-partum mental problems can go on for many many months, and in this case was exacerbated by very severe insomnia and all the drugs seeming to worsen the condition over time rather than help it. The question is how strong the evidence is for that. In this case I think it’s quite strong.
Plus, in Massachusetts, there is a highly unusual burden of proof – I think it’s actually a burden of proof rule that isn’t shared by any other state. Once the question of lack of criminal responsibility is raised, the state must prove the person was legally responsible rather than the person having to prove themselves not responsible. I don’t agree with that burden of proof rule, but that’s what it is in that state. See this.
@Charles R Harrisa bad reaction to the many drugs she was given
That throws a different light on the whole affair.
Depends on if she was actually taking them. You can’t be pushed into psychosis by pills you didn’t take.
Niketas:
I have a good friend who took the antidepressant Wellbutrin for only a very short while and starting getting near-psychotic symptoms and stopped. Some people are very sensitive to certain medications or many medications. Also, the symptoms can last quite a while and not be alleviated by other meds that are prescribed to stop them.
I think some of this is explained in the video I posted. But I’m also aware of it from people I’ve known.
In Clancy’s case, on the topic of whether she took the pills:
See this.
If meds aren’t helping, you are getting worse despite taking them or because of taking them, I don’t think it’s a good idea to keep on with that drug. She kept switching, hoping to find one or more that would actually help.
Here’s an example from my own life. I once was prescribed a common muscle relaxant – Flexeril – for my back problem. I’d never taken it before. I took one dose (a low dose, at that). It was about 5:30 in the evening. By 6:30 in the evening I was so tired I could hardly drag myself off to bed. I passed out on the bed and slept for 18 hours straight. When I awakened I felt awful. I certainly never took that drug again. It was a very weird idiosyncratic response that most people wouldn’t have had, and it was to a single pill.
@neo:In Clancy’s case, on the topic of whether she took the pills:
The pill bottles were introduced into evidence along with how many pills had been taken, we don’t just have her word for it. Some of her prescriptions were never taken. Some she only took one or two. She also took other things like weed gummies.
She kept switching, hoping to find one or more that would actually help.
Perhaps, but I don’t see how the people prescribing for her are to blame when she’s experimenting on her own and not following what’s prescribed.
Niketas:
They are possibly to blame for not following up, and/or for not paying attention to her reports of side effects.
Now, that’s only relevant if they failed to follow up, and/or failed to pay attention to reports of side effects if such reports were made. Those things would be relevant for the civil cases, which I don’t think have started yet.
@neo:They are possibly to blame for not following up, and/or for not paying attention to her reports of side effects.
Depends on what she actually reported to them, of course, and if they actually didn’t follow up. Nobody can follow up on or make adjustments for what they are not told. I’m sure we all know psychiatry is not an exact science and a great deal depends on what a patient says about themselves.
There are a great many facts here and very few accounts of the trial are trying very hard to be comprehensive. This is the sort of thing, I suspect, that people are going to look back on differently once everything has had time to sink in, so to speak. Or some people anyway, opinion on cases like this can very polarized.
The endless ads for pharmaceuticals on TV always end with a warning about possible side effects. Some are horrifying. “thoughts of suicide” ??? When you put a bunch of them together in a mind already off track, combined side effects, even rare, can be at least potentially a problem.
However, strangulation is a hands-on thing. You know what you’re doing and watch it happening to the person right in front of you. You feel it. Either you REALLY don’t know right from wrong, or the impulse is hugely impossible to resist.
But what happens next time you hear she’s pregnant?
@Richard Aubrey:You know what you’re doing and watch it happening to the person right in front of you. You feel it.
And then do it two more times…
The fictional Dr. Lector in “Red Dragon” (for now let’s pretend for the sake of discussion that he’s real . . . he certainly could be real) was adjudged to be clinically insane but not psychotic. He was imprisoned for life in a facility for the criminally insane. He was deemed responsible for his actions and punished accordingly albeit not sufficiently. I don’t recall whether Thomas Harris, the book’s author, made any mention of the death penalty, e.g. whether or not the death penalty was on the books in the state in which Lector was convicted.
I’m confused by the concept of “criminal insanity.” Also confusing is the notion that a person can tell right from wrong and still be psychotic, which presumably ameliorates the nature or extent of that person’s punishment.
Leaving aside for the moment one’s negative views of capital punishment, I have to ask: what does a person have to do to merit the death penalty?
“She also took other things like weed gummies.”
That made me sit up and take notice.
See Alex Berenson for the psychosis-inducing properties of weed, which is oh-so-harmless we absolutely had to legalize it. Reefer madness may very well be real.
@MrsX:That made me sit up and take notice.
There’s a reference in the transcript of Day 10 of the trial and after to her having said she took one marijuana gummy in November. I have not found information that she took more than that, and I am skeptical it could have caused a psychotic break in January. Her defense counsel treats it quite flippantly, using phrases like “devil’s lettuce”.
I mentioned only because she took things she was not told to take, and did not take things she was told to take, yet the people who told her what to take are supposedly somehow responsible for her psychosis, if there was any.
People also are talking about this like she was supposed to take all these medications at once, which is not true. She would take something, or not, and then seek a change to something else, and some of what she was prescribed she never took. As the Mass attonery said:
I guess what I’m asking is, what the heck is “[criminal] insanity”? If a murderer can tell the difference between right and wrong how could he be insane? He could be evil, of course, but not (I think) insane. Unless evil is in and of itself a form of insanity.
That question is for you, neo.
John Ringo has mentioned several times that his wife is very sensitive to drugs, from a recent post on X: “My wife suffered sudden homicidal psychotic break from Cymbalta. It’s still on the market.”
Not sure whether this is a joke, but it’s getting passed around on the internet:
“The Lindsay Clancy case is OJ Simpson for white chicks.”
IrishOtter;
Let’s take a fairly clear example (most cases are in grayer areas, though). But let’s say there’s a psychotic schizophrenic who believes an Archangel (or a divine being even higher up) has visited him and talks to him. He truly believes this. He hears the being telling him that he must kill his children in order to send them straight to heaven in a sinless state. He is psychotic. Although he knows this would ordinarily be wrong and something he never would want to do, he believes a higher power has commanded it and therefore it’s a good thing.
Niketas:
Some of the medications were prescribed together, to be taken together. Some were sequential. But I don’t think anyone was looking at the whole history, and that would have helped to see the overview of what was going on.
Plus, the adverse mental effects can last much longer the the medications themselves.
I don’t know what caused her to do what she did. Psychosis is certainly possible but there is really no way to know and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask a jury to make what is essentially a psychiatric diagnosis. The problem with the insanity defense in Massachusetts, as I understand it, is that if she is deemed no longer psychotic and no imminent threat to others, she could possibly be released in just a few months. Given the nature of her crimes that would seem to be a travesty.
While psychosis is a possibility, and maybe a strong one, I don’t feel confidant enough in that diagnosis to have her released to the public. The insanity defense makes this a possibility and therefore I would not accept it.
“The Lindsay Clancy case is OJ Simpson for white chicks.”
Because it is. There simply must be some other reason than narcissism. There just has to be. They’ll find it down there some how. Some way.
I’ve sat across a table from Rusty Yates, years after the murder of his children. Many blamed him too. I was in his presence as he did his job as an engineer presenting his analysis of work performed. I can’t quite explain the feeling of dread and depression I experienced during that meeting. Most of us here are old enough to have experienced loss. I hope none experience the loss of all their children in one day.
Gregory Harper:
I doubt she’d be getting out that soon. Nor do I think she should. But in terms of danger to the public, she’s more a danger to herself at this point. A woman killing her own children doesn’t usually transfer to committing other crimes, and she has no children left. Plus, her suicide attempt left her a paraplegic. I assume she’ll be needing some sort of care for the rest of her life. Also, I doubt she would ever be employed again.
Unwillin Bar-Kiss:
It is a diagnosis of narcissism that would be a stretch in this case. There is no evidence of prior narcissism, and narcissism is ordinarily a constant trait in a person rather than a sudden thing. Her prior life was fairly exemplary, including her treatment of her children and her behavior at work.
This is worth reading.
Maybe the prosecutor should have allowed the two malpractice cases to play out before the criminal trial. Both are moving forward with an Oct hearing in Patrick’s lawsuit. Meanwhile Dr Tufts has demanded a medical malpractice by a panel of medical and legal experts review the cases against her.
I’ve long thought talk therapy (whether in group or one on one) is more helpful than pill therapy for most people but that’s just a lay opinion. In the video Dr Josef makes a compelling case that Clancy’s medical treatment was lacking. Clancy doesn’t seem to have gotten much from her remote visits and far too little attention to how the prescribed meds/dosages were affecting her. Whether that rose to the level of malpractice seems highly relevant to the question of what criminal liability, if any, she has for strangling her children.
If she’s not liable and the doctors/facilities are not liable then who is? Nobody seems like the wrong but inevitable answer. What a horrible mess.
@Niketas
“There’s a reference in the transcript of Day 10 of the trial and after to her having said she took one marijuana gummy in November. I have not found information that she took more than that, and I am skeptical it could have caused a psychotic break in January.”
Ah, got it. One gummy is indeed unlikely to have sent her into a homicidal rage.
I read John Ringo’s account of his wife’s serious adverse reaction to Cymbalis. She apparently is a strong and self-aware person who saw what was happening to herself and took effective action. That was a scary story. Our medical system’s approach to psychoactive drugs is demented.
Important to note that not all the docs who testified agree that she had post-partum psychosis, that she had psychosis at all, or that she was bipolar as the defense maintains. In fact I’m surprised to see that this comment is the the first to note that bipolar disorder is part of her defense.
Quite the video in neo’s post!
1) I’m the type of person who is a “nocebo” person, rather than a “placebo” person. I’m more fearful of a med than I am initially convinced that it will miraculously cure me. I believe evidence backs me up on that.
2) These doctors who treat us are highly trained in a general way. They all use medical statistics when diagnosing and treating, but they should never rely on those statistics as determinative. You, the patient, might have responses that fall far outside on the bell curve of those statistics.
3) Nobody actually forces you to take pills or shots (with very rare exceptions). If you start a new med and it really doesn’t agree with you, stop taking it. Tell your doctor you stopped. If you tell your doc days or weeks later, it’s OK.
4) I have a newish young primary care physician, who I like. We’ve been experimenting with some common and relatively benign drugs for my age. Statins and blood pressure. About the latter there are two points: It’s an experiment & my doc said so. (Good on him.) He started me on the lowest possible dose. “The dosage is probably too low, but let’s see how it goes first” he said. Terrible! I stopped immediately after feeling ill. Then we tried another med. And it was much better, but we had to adjust that dosage.
This stuff is difficult, and if the doc doesn’t appreciate that, get another doc.
– – – – – –
About the crime:
If a person is suicidal and intends to go through with it, all bets are off as to normal rational thinking by that person. For example:
Why is her claimed drug-induced post-partum psychosis murderously directed at her own kids and not the adults in her life? — Cicero
This is almost common. Parents are care givers. Dad is away at work all day, and she cares for these kids. When she kills herself, who is going to look after the kids??? She’s got to fix this problem.
It even happens with family annihilator dads. He’s the earner with a stay-at-home wife. He’s a mess and decides he must split with the family. Who will look after them and pay their bills? He kills them all, and then leaves. Psychotic? Yup.
The actual killings: I haven’t followed this case, so I incorrectly assumed manual strangulation. If it was manual, how does a person continue after the first one? Especially if you are looking at them in the eyes.
But it wasn’t manual strangulation. She used exercise bands. I am familiar with these bands. I’m kind of shocked by that. How did she dream that up? It is rather perversely creative. That is the one thing (only thing?) that really sounds like premeditation to me. She could quickly wrap it tightly around the neck and knot it, and move on to the next one, without necessarily observing the results.
Neo:
“I doubt she’d be getting out that soon. Nor do I think she should. But in terms of danger to the public, she’s more a danger to herself at this point. A woman killing her own children doesn’t usually transfer to committing other crimes, and she has no children left. Plus, her suicide attempt left her a paraplegic. I assume she’ll be needing some sort of care for the rest of her life. Also, I doubt she would ever be employed again.”
I agree but the possibility exists. This is what I don’t like about the insanity defense. It hands the sentencing over to periodic psychiatric evaluations. Given the nature of this crime, I don’t believe her sentence should be based solely on when a group of psychiatrists believe she no longer presents a threat to herself or others.
Does Nik actually know anything about the pharmacology of psychiatric medications, or is this just a long running conversation illustrative of the PhD effect: educated in one specific field but unafraid to opine without expertise in other areas?
The entire case to me is just too tragic and profoundly saddening. Three murdered children.
I had the same reaction as MrsX when the MJ gummies were mentioned.
Also, how do we know she only had one?
Also, Rage. It can be buried so deep.
Also, ‘Give thanks to the Lord for he is good, his mercy endures forever’.
She apparently is a strong and self-aware person who saw what was happening to herself and took effective action.
==
The strong and self-aware person agreed to take antidepressants.
Neo:
I don’t know if you will still be reviewing theses comments, but thought I would add a bit of clarification to my earlier proposal. What I meant to suggest is eliminating subjectivity from the determination of guilt or innocence and substituting a “reasonable man” standard, as in civil suits for negligence. Thus, a jury would be given all the circumstantial and other evidence about the crime, such as in Clancy’s case, that she pretextually excused her husband from the home, confined her children in the basement, took exercise bands and seriatim garrotted them to death. Her guilt or innocence would be determined independent of her alleged mental state, but rather on whether she did what the evidence establishes. After that, should an “insanity” defense be raised, the jury would be given all the other evidence about that and determine whether she was legally insane or not. If not, then sentencing to incarceration in prison (or capital punishment in those jurisdictions retaining it) follows; if so, then confinement in a mental institution for a commensurate period follows (obviously providing for lifetime confinement in lieu of capital punishment), as I outlined earlier.
“You gotta be nuts to even want to do this stuff!” is a pretty solid judgment. It does not apply in insanity defense. Except when it does as in the psychotic break. And it doesn’t consider you might get over the nuttiness afterwards, as convenient. Still, it’s a judgment most of us would make. Irresistible impulse is, indeed, insane. And not knowing what you’re doing…I really believed I was giving CPR. Or defending myself against a rabid put bull. Honest.
Either would be tough to present in the court room if you’re perfectly sane at the hearings.
Spencer Pratt’s banned by Tik Tok video on his take as to the mass psychosis reflected in (mainly AWFLs’) advocacy of the “he did it” support of Lindsay Clancy/ “Mangione gave him what he deserved”/ “Tyler Robinson is a patsy.”
The suicidal empathy of their support of criminal illegal aliens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYSaeU5qC70
Nope. Sorry Neo. Not buying it.
To anyone who’s concerned, perhaps very concerned, that they don’t all-the-time, completely love their children:
That’s normal. You’re not crazy.
Being a parent is really tough.
Hang in there. You’re doing fine.
If I’m to take the psychiatrist in the video at face value, a half dozen different medical professionals – among them at least two psychiatrists one of whom has an association with Harvard University – prescribed her anti-depressants repeatedly even though her reaction to them from the beginning suggested they were toxic to her. The man associated with Harvard did so even though she was in the tank to clean out her system. Referring to this as ‘malpractice’ is anodyne, as the sequence of events (in this doctor’s telling) suggests that what they did is the default protocol for persons in distress. Remember Ivan Illich?
==
I am not competent in this.
Steve (Retired/recovering lawyer):
Long and ancient tradition of Judeo-Christian law (and certain other legal systems) is to take mental illness into consideration as a mitigating factor in criminal responsibility (mens rea).
Art Deco:
From what I’ve heard about her treatment, there were many health practitioners who fell below the standard guidelines for basic practice. I don’t know whether they’d be ruled against in a court of law, however. There’s a lot of slipshod practice out there.
Richard Aubrey:
However, in Clancy’s case, her descent and anguish over a period of several months – and her constant efforts to seek help – were well-documented.
One thing very clear in the transcript is that the defense counsel continually equivocates words like “post-partum”, at one time defining it to mean “for the rest of a woman’s life after she has any baby”, and then demanding that the docs follow his definition instead of DSM:
Typical lawyer stuff, I get it, but it’s designed to obfuscate, not to tell the truth. He’s creating his own personal definition of “post-partum psychosis” which changes according to his rhetorical convenience and trying to get the jury to buy into it; if the docs don’t recognize what’s wrong with Clancy just because it doesn’t fit their nitpicking DMS definitions so much the worse for the docs, anyone can see she’s very sick and it’s not her fault.
But the entire argument for her not being accountable is medical in nature. He wants medical authority listened to only when it favors his client and ignored when it doesn’t, which, like I said, is typical lawyer stuff and not surprising.
— Richard Aubrey
No, it isn’t.
It’s a dangerous and common error of our modern age to confuse ‘evil’ with ‘insanity’. The implication is that a sane, balanced mind is naturally good, and only a sickness or mental disorder would produce horrific acts. This premise (the natural goodness of people) is false. The Fall of Man is a fact of life, and all humans are tainted with evil.
It’s absolutely true that madness and chemical imbalances can result in horrible acts that the perpetrator would not do in their normal state. But some people are just malicious, or utterly self-centered, too.
— Art Deco
Proving what, exactly?
— Unwilling Bar-Kiss
And you know this how?
You might be right for all I know, but what is your basis? How is your certainty any different than the people insisting it must have been her husband who did it?
I don’t know enough about the details of the case to hazard a guess about her motives or level of agency. Almost everything we think we know about this matter is coming to use at second- or third-hand, and pretty much every source has some kind of agenda.
I do have opinions about the lunatic insistence by her supporters that she can’t possibly be guilty or can’t possibly be responsible.