I never liked roller coaster rides very much.

This morning the hospital called saying my ex had a big respiratory crisis and the doctor started asking me a bunch of end-of-life questions. I raced over to the hospital but by the time I arrived the crisis had abated, and he was back to merely being extremely sick.

So here I am, pecking this out on my cellphone. He is sleeping now, which is good, so I may try to crank out some posts and/or polish a draft. Forgive typos and errors- it’s much harder to proofread on a phone.

The post Another update on my ex appeared first on The New Neo.

However, the insult to his lungs that occurred during the surgery was profound, and he’s not a young man and has several co-morbidities. The doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists make no long-term predictions.

A great many relatives have come to visit, which has been pleasant for him but exhausting. Now there’s a lull.

In order to protect his privacy, I’m not going to go into much medical detail. But I plan to post periodic updates. I deeply thank all of you for your good wishes and prayers.

The post An update on my ex appeared first on The New Neo.

What might happen in a second trial? Perhaps a plea deal of some sort; it’s very hard to say.

However, I was surprised to read yesterday that there is apparently only a single juror who is holding out:

The trial of Lindsay Clancy — which has captivated the nation since July — took a bombshell turn on Thursday when it was revealed that there was one juror who disagreed with the rest following 36 hours of intense deliberation.

The news, which came via a note from the forewoman that a single holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, left Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington visibly raging — and demanding the person be kicked off the 12-person jury and replaced with an alternate.

The judge did not grant that demand. But it sounds as though the holdout is for a guilty verdict and the rest are not – although, as I’ve said before, I don’t see how Clancy goes free and I don’t think she will, whatever the verdict.

The law in Massachusetts on this is very unusual – in fact, I think it is singular. This is how it works [emphasis mine]:

Once the defense raises the issue of the accused’s mental state at the time of the crime, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible, said Daniel Medwed, a university distinguished professor of law.

“In Massachusetts, we don’t typically use the term ‘insanity defense,’” Medwed said, citing the stigma that attaches to the word “insanity.” Instead, it’s referred to as “lack of criminal responsibility.” …

In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis. A qualifying mental disease or defect also need not fit a specific medical diagnosis.

You can see how this might lead to a situation in which a holdout juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. That’s because the law on this in Massachusetts is very much tilted in favor of the defendant. In other states, the burden of proof for lack of criminal responsibility is different:

In many jurisdictions, insanity is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden falls on the defense to prove that a defendant had “a mental disease or defect” that prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions, Medwed said. But that is not the case in Massachusetts, he said.

Procedurally, that means the defense “doesn’t have to do as much” in the way of persuading jurors compared with other states, according to Medwed.

However, an affirmative defense doesn’t have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It needs to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, defending on the jurisdiction.

The state of things as I write these words is this:

The judge in Lindsay Clancy’s trial has given the defense one hour to make an emergency appeal before declaring a mistrial. …

A filing from Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has been submitted to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, according to the clerk’s office.

And the court is on lunch break.

The post The Clancy jury apparently will end in a mistrial appeared first on The New Neo.

Yesterday I was at the hospital much of the afternoon and came home around 8:30 PM, but he called me again at around 11:00 PM and sounded awful. I simply couldn’t relax about it, and since I live just a few minutes from the hospital I went back there to check it out.

Fortunately, he was asleep. And also fortunately, I had a long talk with the nurse and she reassured me about various things. He’s certainly not out of the woods, but she seemed competent and on top of things.

And then, when I returned home and got out of my car, I happened to look up to the sky. The moon looked very unusual, and it occurred to me that this might be a lunar eclipse. So I got out my trusty cellphone and sure enough, it was! Plus, just by chance I happened to be stepping out of my car at the exact peak minute of the eclipse.

So that’s the silver lining, I guess.

The post On my ex and the moon appeared first on The New Neo.

I am fairly certain she won’t be “getting off,” whatever the verdict. If she is found to have had diminished capacity due to psychosis, her stay in a mental hospital will be very long, IMHO. She brutally murdered her three young children. That is the reality, and they’re not just letting her out in a month. My guess is that she would be staying for many many years and perhaps even for life.

For example, Andrea Yates – who killed her 5 children in Texas in 2001, twenty-five years ago – and was found found guilty but ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity (see this for the twistings and turnings of her legal situation), is still institutionalized in a mental hospital. Massachusetts is different than Texas of course, but here’s how it works in Massachusetts:

Massachusetts law says the court can order her hospitalized for up to 40 days for “observation and examination,” and prosecutors or hospital officials can then petition for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility.

If a judge determines Clancy is mentally ill and releasing her “would create a likelihood of serious harm,” she could be committed to a facility, the law states. The initial commitment is generally valid for six months and can be renewed in one-year periods.

“She’ll never be released unless there’s a finding by a judge that she doesn’t represent a danger to herself or others,” Rossman said.

She might never get out. Also, she’s probably still a suicide risk, although as a paraplegic she might have trouble accomplishing it.

If I had to guess, I’d predict the jury will be hung. But that’s 100% a guess.

The post Whatever the verdict, Lindsay Clancy is extremely unlikely to be getting out quickly appeared first on The New Neo.

Without violating his privacy with Too Much Information, I’ll just say that eight days ago I took my ex-husband to the ER and he was diagnosed with two dangerous but not-likely-to-be-lethal conditions. At least one of them would absolutely be needing surgery, so they sent him home with instructions to call a surgeon and make an appointment. The ER was full with a long wait. And the surgeon couldn’t see him for almost two weeks.

Meanwhile, at home, he wasn’t feeling well. He didn’t want to go back to the ER and be sent home again, and it didn’t seem worthwhile to me either. But over the next five days he seemed to be deteriorating, and he wasn’t eating much at all. On Monday he was so ill that I called 911. They took him back to the ER, where they repeated the tests and decided this time to admit him, and that he had to have surgery – pronto. So instead of having a scheduled surgery with the preferred surgeon, it was pot-luck surgery at midnight the very day he came back to the hospital.

Fortunately, the team repaired the problem. But my ex developed a few complications and is still in the hospital. I’m the designated helper, and I’ve been going over there for quite a few hours every day. The staff has been pretty good, but they seem overworked because the place is very full.

However, there was one incident that really angered me – although it has nothing to do with the medical aspect of things. There was a middle-aged lady who came around to officially inform him of his Medicare rights – things like ye olde Patients’ Bill of Rights and the fact that if the hospital tries to kick you out prematurely, you can protest. That sort of thing. When she finished her spiel she said that we needed to vote in November, and not to vote for “that person” (she clearly meant Trump even though he’s not on the ballot) because he was going to end Medicare.

Extremely unprofessional and inappropriate, not to mention incorrect. I surprised her by snapping at her, and I’m contemplating reporting her but not while he’s still in the hospital.

The post Update on my ex-husband’s health appeared first on The New Neo.

The post A summary of Lindsay Clancy’s efforts to get help appeared first on The New Neo.

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.

The post The Lindsay Clancy case appeared first on The New Neo.

They certainly are thin; the quintessential ectomorphs, with elastic limbs and extreme grace. Their lean bodies and long legs in proportion to height make them look tall, but I began to wonder whether they really were. After all, I know that ballet dancers often look much taller onstage than they are (see the discussion in this post). Maybe the same is true of rhythmic gymnasts such as this champion:

Well, it turns out that rhythmic gymnasts really are tall, relatively tall. Not as tall as basketball players, but taller than other gymnasts – who tend to be very short. Here’s the explanation:

One of the most important physical quality a rhythmic gymnast must have is a slim and stylish body. According to Spanish ex gymnast Susana Mendizábal, rhythmic gymnastics must be tall with long limbs, narrow trunk and hips and very thin. With an average height of 5 ft 4 in and weight of 94.8 pounds stereotypical canon for rhythmic implies Gymnasts’ thinness is usually genetically determined.

That height combined with that weight makes for a very thin person. And some of them are as tall as 5’9″ – the Wiki entry for the gymnast in the video you just watched claims that she is that tall.

Also:

Taking away all of the figures and using common sense, rhythmic gymnasts that achieve elite also tend to be taller because as a lot of the routines involve throwing and catching it’s easier for them to retrieve the apparatus as their limbs are longer. The longer the reach and the strides, the less effort you have to do to perform a routine.

I find them quite amazing.

[NOTE: In my previous post on short ballet dancers, it’s so old that the YouTube videos have disappeared. One of the short dancers I discuss in the post is Daniel Ulbricht of the New York City Ballet. He seems to be retired from performing and is now teaching. There aren’t a whole lot of videos of him on YouTube, but I thought this one shows off his high jump.

Unfortunately, there’s a dark background and he’s wearing dark tights, which sometimes makes it hard to see the full height of his jumps.]

The post Are rhythmic gymnasts tall? appeared first on The New Neo.

An excerpt:

I am not going to present all the pros and cons of the research involved; that would require a book. But I will say that, having read a good deal of it, I come down fairly strongly at this point on the side of thinking the epidemic is almost entirely an artifact of statistics and diagnostic changes.

Increasing reimbursement also fuels the increase. And the vaccine connection theory was revealed a few years later to have been a hoax.

I also want to call your attention to a Frontline documentary I saw on television way back in 1993. It’s extremely sad and very well-done. The topic is facilitated communication in cases of profound autism. Parents desperately (and understandably) wanted to believe that their previously nonverbal autistic children were thinking deep thoughts and aching to communicate, and that the technique of facilitated communication had unlocked riches that had always lurked hidden within them. But it was actually – if not exactly a hoax, then a case of yearning and wishful thinking on the part of both health professionals and the relatives of the autistic children.

Here’s the link to the documentary:

The post Autism redux appeared first on The New Neo.