Just wondering what your thoughts are about her. Do you think she’s innocent or guilty of triple homicide?
No idea. Wasn’t in court to hear the evidence.
2 Likes
Was kinda hoping to hear your piece on it. But, we don’t always get what we want. So if that’s your final opinion then that’s all I’m getting lol 
1 Like
Hasn’t really made the news down under mate. Don’t know the lady.
Hard to say. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt that the committed the physical act.
But its if she was responsible mentally that seems to be the issue.
If the Lindsay Clancy trial is an indictment of anything, then it is an indictment of the current state of health care, especially mental health care in the United States.
1 Like
I won’t speak to this particular case. However, I will say that, in general, I agree that postpartum psychosis is a very real phenomenon. Of course it is not entirely understood because, well, it’s a condition effecting only women and it seems medical research tends to focus on men.
3 Likes
Then a retrial may focus on whether acts committed because of irresistible psychological forces within an individual don’t have social consequences. We shall see.
I think its clear they have social consequences. I think under the law though its more about if the individual is morally responsible while under the effect of a mental condition.
And this has a bearing on whether they’re legally responsible?
If it can be proven that the condition prevented them from understanding what they were doing yes. But its a high bar to clear.
I think this is an argument for the notion that if we understand the roots and motivations of a person’s behavior then it naturally follows that we should excuse antisocial acts.
Or IOW, focusing so totally on the individual that it overlooks the existence of a society which has a responsibility to all its members to protect them from some, and to recognize that actions have consequences.
I admit this may be a difference of fundamental views in the subject.
Actually, Massachusetts has some very favorable procedural law working in favor of her defense attorneys. There, it is affirmative on the prosecutor to prove the defendant is sane enough to assume criminal responsibility, rather than the defense proving the defendant is insane.
This is what hung the jury in her first trial.
In fairness the legal system doesn’t really work as a detterent when it comes to people with mental issues.
1 Like
Ahh, its a bit different over her in the UK.
Which is why, if she’s found not guilty by reason of insanity, she’ll be separated from society until medical evaluations determine that she is no longer a danger to the public.
Even in this case a person is separated from a society which has a responsibility to all its members to protect them from being fatally harmed by some.
I agree with this 100%.
It is well known that women have worse outcomes than men when it comes to surviving heart attacks, because women present differently than men because women and men have subtle anatomical differences.
So while the medical field is White and patriarcal, this is understood and there is a serious movement underway to address these disparities, as we have now reached a place where approximately half of the medical school students are men and half are women.
I have (for example) often heard male doctors going out of their way to confer with female doctors when they run into specific medical problems with their female patients.
I have been following the trial closely because (like Clancy) I am also a nurse, and I’ve spoken with a few female nurses about it to see if there are any unrecognized sexist attitudes in my views toward the situation . . . as I am always trying to find ways to improve my nursing practice.
I guess I’m still–like the jury–on the fence about her guilt or innocence. Post-partum psychosis is a real phenomena that has been poorly researched, and I get that she tried to get help for it.
Yet she is a nurse who worked in labor and delivery, and her training as a nurse would give her the resources to set this whole thing up. Nurses (just like everyone else) have committed horrible crimes. As an example, there is a former nurse in Britain who supposedly murdered several babies while working in hospitals.
On one hand we have a woman who was desperate for help who murdered her three children while in the grip of a poorly understood mental illness, or a woman who has the training and experience to present like someone who has this condition. I guess I am also bothered by the fact that she presented with this condition so textbook perfect, that the very fact of this perfect presentation makes me question if she researched it . . . yet again, if I had a specific medical issue, I would research it so I could be informed.
So–like the jury–I am deadlocked (no pun intended).
If she was conscious of her motives… guilty. If she was in some kind of delusional trance due to some kind of psychotic break with reality, then she needs to be institutionalized for psychiatric help, not just tossed in jail to throw away the key.
1 Like
She’s 100% guilty of murdering her 3 children, who were all 6 years old or younger. She strangled each one of them with an exercise belt in the basement, and she even had to chase down her oldest who was trying to get away. Her doctors have said she wasn’t ever going through a episode of psychosis, and they even had a full time nanny to help with the kids as well.
Her claim of mental illness being responsible and not solely on her for what she did isn’t good enough considering what happened to those poor kids. She should never see the light of day ever again.
I did it but it’s not my fault! Right.
2 Likes
Sounds totally insane to me!
5 Likes