MA - Lindsay Clancy, Strangled 3 Children in Murder/Suicide Attempt, Duxbury, Jan 2023

[Cedars]

It's easy to assume that because someone acts decisively in a small window of opportunity that they have a grasp on reality and understand the consequences and gravity of their actions, but the fact is that it's not as simple as that.

RSBM

That's maybe not the most persuasive argument, since I think it applies to almost any murder that is not premeditated. 'Too bad', we say, 'you should have had better control over your anger, or lust, etc.'

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

RSBM

That's maybe not the most persuasive argument, since I think it applies to almost any murder that is not premeditated. 'Too bad', we say, 'you should have had better control over your anger, or lust, etc.'

JMO

I think we're talking about different things.

A person acting in a rage, impulsively, still knows that stabbing someone is likely to kill them.

Someone in psychosis may think that someone they stab is not who they say they are, and may be trying to remove the disguise to get to the real person within. There is no comprehension that their actions may kill, because their brain is telling them they're just removing a disguise like an article of clothing. (This delusion is not taken from a case I've heard about, it is a hypothetical, imaginary example invented for the purpose of this comment.)

We can't, fairly, hold the two people equally responsible, even if both victims die as a result.

Does this mean the latter receives no consequences? No. But they may receive a sentence that reflects their lack of intent, and be sentenced to a medical or psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

 

[Knox]

I think everyone is different. My spouse has been taking it for maybe a decade with no side effects at all.

I took it for almost a year and a half, several years ago. I didn't have any bad experiences either, but it took almost three weeks to get a normal sleep pattern back.

 

[Cedars]

I understand how hard this is to understand and I think it’s mainly because this is one of those “woman’s issues” that for years polite society didn’t talk about. Well, it’s time to drag it out of the closet. It’s been happening for years and woman and the people who love them desperately need help. Let’s keep this front and center, let’s stop cringing when we see Andrea Yates in our minds eye.

Before Andrea Yates there was Susan Smith.

JMO

 

[Cedars]

I think we're talking about different things.

A person acting in a rage, impulsively, still knows that stabbing someone is likely to kill them.

Someone in psychosis may think that someone they stab is not who they say they are, and may be trying to remove the disguise to get to the real person within. There is no comprehension that their actions may kill, because their brain is telling them they're just removing a disguise like an article of clothing. (This delusion is not taken from a case I've heard about, it is a hypothetical, imaginary example invented for the purpose of this comment.)

We can't, fairly, hold the two people equally responsible, even if both victims die as a result.

Does this mean the latter receives no consequences? No. But they may receive a sentence that reflects their lack of intent, and be sentenced to a medical or psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

I agree, someone in psychosis at the time they commit a crime, may be found not criminally responsible.

The issue to be decided in court is whether they were psychotic at the time of the crime. It is not enough of a defense, IMO, to just have evidence that they had schizophrenia, or were depressed, or were suicidal, etc. Actual psychosis has a number of markers, there is usually evidence of disordered thinking, brought in as evidence.

Similarly, IMO, it is not enough to say a women was experiencing post-partum depression, to automatically assume she was psychotic at the time of strangling three children.

What I think people are really saying is 'she must have been psychotic, she wouldn't have done it otherwise', but I don't think that's a valid legal argument. People used to say that about fathers who killed their family, or children who killed their parents. "They must have been insane", although the word they actually used was 'mad'.

JMO

 

[rkendmar]

Before Andrea Yates there was Susan Smith.

JMO

IIRC, Andrea Yates and Lindsey Clancy (allegedly) were both actively experiencing psychosis when they killed their children...Susan Smith was not.

 

[iamshadow21]

What I think people are really saying is 'she must have been psychotic, she wouldn't have done it otherwise', but I don't think that's a valid legal argument. People used to say that about fathers who killed their family, or children who killed their parents. "They must have been insane", although the word they actually used was 'mad'.

JMO

RSBM

I don't think it's a leap to assume she was actively psychotic at the time given the information that has come from the media, especially from the family. We know she was receiving intensive treatment. It is, as you say, a matter for the courts to determine how much of a factor it was in the events that took place.

And though all killed their families, I don't honestly think we can put this case in the same basket as family annihilators like List and Watts. Not without something completely overturning everything we've learnt up until now, and I think if that was going to happen, it would have happened already.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, a psychiatrist, or an insider of any kind on this case. I'm just of the opinion that this is nothing to do with the selfishness and arrogance and possessiveness that List and Watts showed, and everything to do with a psychiatric illness that is incredibly difficult to predict or treat that can, in rare and terrible cases, have the cruellest of outcomes.

But, we will have to wait and see what happens as the case progresses.

 

[spicyrock]

I agree, someone in psychosis at the time they commit a crime, may be found not criminally responsible.

The issue to be decided in court is whether they were psychotic at the time of the crime. It is not enough of a defense, IMO, to just have evidence that they had schizophrenia, or were depressed, or were suicidal, etc. Actual psychosis has a number of markers, there is usually evidence of disordered thinking, brought in as evidence.

Similarly, IMO, it is not enough to say a women was experiencing post-partum depression, to automatically assume she was psychotic at the time of strangling three children.

What I think people are really saying is 'she must have been psychotic, she wouldn't have done it otherwise', but I don't think that's a valid legal argument. People used to say that about fathers who killed their family, or children who killed their parents. "They must have been insane", although the word they actually used was 'mad'.

JMO

For me it’s more: there is a known probability given her ppd/ppp and her purported history as a loving parent- and therefore that is to logically be given the most consideration.

 

[spicyrock]

IIRC, Andrea Yates and Lindsey Clancy (allegedly) were both actively experiencing psychosis when they killed their children...Susan Smith was not.

Agree. Susan Smith, iirc, had a self serving motive and was basically a heartless sociopath. Jmo.

Andrea Yates deserves better than to be compared to her. In addition to being severely ill her husband was an idiot and her medical providers failed her. And she lives her life in penance, basically. Her case is the epitome of tragic to me. For her and her children.

 

[scdiv]

Yea, for all appearance sake, LC was a woman whose whole life and identity revolved around being a mom and mom life. Unless we learn something crazy, she wasn't pulling a Chris Watts or Susan Smith or Caylee Anthony, disposing of her family so she could go run off with some guy and some fantasy alternate life. She also immediately did self-harm, whether it was an intentional suicide attempt (which the medics calls sounded like) or else was full on psychosis, drugs, with visions of Helen Hunt jumping through a window in a back in the day After School Special about the dangers of (illegal) drugs kids. But it wasn't necessarily a suicide attempt in that movie. In this case, it seems like it was at least a deliberate suicide attempt.

I think we're just missing so many details. Did she have a negative exchange with her husband before he left, swallow handfuls of mixed meds in a rage, and then not even know what she was doing? Was she using her prescriptions responsibly, but having horrific side effects?

I don't what I think or what should happen to her. Sorry and remorse doesn't undo do this. Just like the drink driver who's generally a pretty good human, but has a few too many, and hits the road and causes a drunk driving deaths. He's still sentenced and serves out the consequences of taking a life. I just don't know.

 

[BrownRice]

Before Andrea Yates there was Susan Smith.

JMO

I don’t think those mothers’ names should be in the same conversation. AY had severe PPP and SS killed her boys because she her new lover didn’t want kids. No psychosis with the latter.

 

[BrownRice]

Agree. Susan Smith, iirc, had a self serving motive and was basically a heartless sociopath. Jmo.

Andrea Yates deserves better than to be compared to her. In addition to being severely ill her husband was an idiot and her medical providers failed her. And she lives her life in penance, basically. Her case is the epitome of tragic to me. For her and her children.

Andrea Yates is the poster child for Postpartum Psychosis. It’s one of the cases I’ll never forget and one of the first times I really felt compassion towards a murderer. And still do.

 

[BrownRice]

Tuesday is going to be interesting at her arraignment. I wonder if cameras will be allowed in the courtroom. I believe she is going to appear via Zoom. Seems the DA is disputing the defense attorney’s statement she is unable to walk (is she paralyzed or just so overcome with grief she can’t move- is that even a thing?). Is it true she hasn’t seen/talked to her parents? Wouldn’t that be more of a medical restriction than legal? And if she can’t see her parents m can she see her husband?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I think the difference between the tone of the DA and the tone of Lindsay’s husband and family is notable. Can anyone speak to that? I know they brought charges so they want a conviction, but do they seem… emotional? Not sure what the right word is.

I can’t imagine how awful it would be to have to discover and prosecute this kind of homicide. Just, the details must be excruciating to know and be so close to.

I don’t want to see LC convicted of murder. She’s sick, that’s really clear to me. But I feel for everyone who has to touch this case

To clarify my thoughts on the DA’s attitude-

If I had to prosecute this case I think I would be more sensitive for the sake of the wishes and feelings of the father and grandparents of the victims. I think I would take a gentler approach- not in my actions because I would still want to see my perpetrator secured in custody and on the path to a court resolution- but in my tone.

I don’t know what is normal in a case like this. It’s not like I expect them to do anything differently, I don’t know what to expect at all. But it’s jarring to hear them downplaying her injuries in juxtaposition to her husband, the father of the dead children, who found his family dead and almost dead, taking a completely different tone.

I don’t know what the implications are, I just find it notable

I thought the same thing. Their tone seems to be one they would take for a cold blooded murderer, it doesn't appear to be consistent with them considering any extenuating circumstance at all.
It feels really harsh to me, like boohoo, you're ill, but you're still an evil murderer.

That was just my take on it. I'm not impressed with the prosecutors attitude here. JMO

 

[spicyrock]

I thought the same thing. Their tone seems to be one they would take for a cold blooded murderer, it doesn't appear to be consistent with them considering any extenuating circumstance at all.
It feels really harsh to me, like boohoo, you're ill, but you're still an evil murderer.

That was just my take on it. I'm not impressed with the prosecutors attitude here. JMO

I’ve thought about this some more and I think I have gained a little more understanding for them. I think in cases like this (and they are in roles that are privy to all the terrible details of what happened to the children) it is so hard for people who don’t have an understanding of mental illness to get how truly, truly disconnected from reality a person can be. People just don’t get it. The last time I experienced psychosis it happened somewhat out of the blue and I didn’t think, believe or even know- I accepted as truth as much as I accept as truth that I am holding my phone right now- that my very nice husband was a serial killer who was planning to murder me and sell our child to a criminal ring. For a solid week I was terrified, didn’t sleep and planned my escape. I installed seven cameras around my 1400 ft square foot house and sat on my couch watching the screens. I was silent toward my husband or telling lies because I didn’t want to tip him off to the fact that I knew about his secret life. When I had my chance I sure as hell took it, decisively and with intent and planning- I grabbed my child and ran.

But none of it was real. It was real to me, but it wasn’t real. It was illness. It’s traumatizing.

I drove across the state to my mother’s house and asked her for help, she wisely called my psychiatrist and the episode was resolved. And most mentally ill people including me don’t commit acts of violence. But I do understand how LC could have been completely disconnected from reality and still be viewed like she knew what she was doing- to her, she even might have known. But what she knew wasn’t real.

I think prosecutors are human and most people have to be educated about it to understand what is possible. I hope their emotions about the children and their drive for convictions don’t get in the way of their ability to learn and to see that in cases like this justice can’t look the same.

Severe mental illness is brutal. It’s just brutal. There is a terrible violence - the violence that the illness does to the person who has it. PPD/PPP - that’s your brain turning on you.

LC’s children- they are so beautiful and full of life in their photos. They are victims of that violence, too.

I find myself hoping the psychiatrist did something wrong, looking for problems with the medications because I want someone to blame for this. I want someone to pay. So I guess in a way I am like the DA, too.

 

[LAHOLLA]

I have a family member who was on a huge list of medications for both BD and fibromyalgia.

As someone said before, when the doc decides to try something new, no one comes and takes the medication that doesn't seem to be helping.

She would go days without sleep and i think all of us can relate to the mental fog that sleep deprivation can cause.

She wouldn't remember if she took her meds and oftentimes they weren't really helping anyway so she would take more.

There were a couple instances where she would take large amounts of benzos and run out before she could refill. Suddenly stopping them (bc she was out), triggered psychosis.

I feel like LC's husband prob helped with med management but i also wonder if something like this could have happened to her.

 

[Stunned]

Before Andrea Yates there was Susan Smith.

JMO

Nope. Not even close. Susan Smith murdered her children to be with another man. Susan Smith IS a monster.

 

[Cedars]

Nope. Not even close. Susan Smith murdered her children to be with another man. Susan Smith IS a monster.

That's my point. Not every woman who murders her children is a victim suffering from PPS. The details need to be investigated first and presented at trial.

I am not invested in any point of view, I'm not making accusations, I'm trying to be rational.

JMO

 

[spicyrock]

That's my point. Not every woman who murders her children is a victim suffering from PPS. The details need to be investigated first and presented at trial.

I am not invested in any point of view, I'm not making accusations, I'm trying to be rational.

JMO

I missed your point the first time, but I see it now. I appreciate your rationality. I think we should keep all perspectives in mind. I’m not so much personally invested as I see facts based on personal experience that I feel others would not see. But as we learn more about the case we will all gain a better understanding of what happened and how.

 

[KMouse]

Three possibilities I can think of.

She feels like she deserves it. It's not complicated.

Everyone in that place knows her and understands her condition. The outside world is far more hostile.

Also, institutionalisation is a thing. It's why a lot of folks who've done hard time commit a petty offence within months of release. Outside is too chaotic. A prison, a psych ward, or the military, for that matter, have structure. Some folks can't adjust, or know they won't be able to.

MOO

I am assuming there is definitely some institutionalization involved. Yates has had her needs looked after for a long time and heading out on her own to a big scary world would be difficult.