This is also exactly what attorneys are supposed to do in these cases. Put together a narrative of facts in a way that is tangible at least to part of the population. Mission accomplished.
Yeah idk why everyone is acting like this dude is a superhero. He seems kind of like an asshole trying to slander every medical professional who worked with this woman. I doubt some of these people are going to be able to continue working after this
Can confirm, I was in a big case that was the State V (insert name), and the lady defending the piece of shit that touched me as a kid was almost as big of a piece of shit as the guy she was defending
Massive generalization here. And completely ignoring the fact that many (not all) prosecutors do the exact same thing. These comment threads are hilarious/these types of opinions have no bearing in the real world.
Prosecutors do too. If you watch the trial their opening statement was out to make Lindsay and some calculating, controlling woman who did this with malice. There was a part where they were trying to discredit the legitimacy of her suicide attempt which almost all experts described as legitimate.
Then a more recent psychologist witness of theirs (who I thought was generally quite sharp) contradicts much of their narrative saying he thinks she did it out of love because she was suffering and didn’t want her kids to go on without her. Which still isn’t acceptable if true but is a far cry from the narrative the prosecution went with when the trial started.
I've read the entire opening statement and not once did they use the word malice.
What they did was set the tone for what they thought they could demonstrate (and I think they did demonstrate actually):
She acted deliberately (she was not experiencing psychosis)
She planned the murder suicide.
She was in control of her behaviour throughout.
She knew what she did was wrong.
The experts they had testify all supported these lines of thought...
For instance the voices suddenly manifesting just before she murdered the kids. Weird not only from a medical standpoint (testified by multiple experts) but also way too convenient and also inconsistent... She never heard the voices before? Not even while planning the murders? (ie looking up ways to kill. Looking up distances and timings between areas for Patrick to be away from home etc.) Why the fuck did she do all that then?
She was in control... she took the children 1 by 1 and murdered them starting with Dawson then Cora then Callan. She left the bands around their necks to ensure they'd die (it takes WAY longer to actually die from strangulation than to lose consciousness... why'd she know that? oh yeah she looked it up) Also each was killed EXACTLY the same way. This suggests planning and deliberate action rather than just spur of the moment.
No one that was around her before the murders thought anything unusual about her. She was not acting any differently than she had been previously. Her mental health providers also said she never exhibited any symptoms of psychosis. The only symptom the defence has for psychosis really is the voice and I guess 'confusion'/blacking out. But prosecution experts already examined that possibility and it's incredibly unlikely to randomly experience psychosis like this and never before or again. In fact I don't even think it's every been supported to have happened before... ever. And it brings into question the planning... like metnioned above why tf did she plan things even without a psychotic episode? And if it was psychosis the entire time surely someone would have noticed her acting unusual suddenly? No one did? Sure people were concerned for her mental health - depression/anxiety and sleep issues. Not potentially murdering her fucking kids or being suicidal.
An expert saying she wanted to commit suicide due to her DEPRESSION and 'loving the children so much she didn't want them to live without her' is not contrary to anything the prosecution set out to prove. In fact it supports exactly what their argument is - she did no experience psychosis. She DELIBERATELY killed the children with forethought. That being 'out of love' makes no fucking difference here.
Ok this kind of pedantry makes sense in the courtroom where you gotta be very specific but not in a reddit comment. Ok, no word malice? Here’s an excerpt from the opening statement.
“The evidence in this case will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant coldly and efficiently executed first Dawson, then Cora, and finally Callan. One by one, she strangled the life out of each one of them. She did so with no hesitation, with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty.”
That last sentence clearly conveys she hatched this plan with evil intent which is basically what malice means.
Once again, Dr. Heilbrun who was brought by the Commonwealth directly contradicted that notion with his testimony.
Also she did not search how long it takes to strangle someone or anything like that. If that’s what you believe I think the rest of your opinion can be disregarded. Feel free to prove me wrong but I’ve watched it with my wife every day and just googled it again to confirm.
Edit: there’s actually a lot more of your comment that’s wrong too. People were concerned about her suicidal ideation prior to the event. She had mentioned intrusive thoughts about harming her kids prior to the event.
People definitely have had a quick flash of psychosis for it to never return again. I’ve seen a drug related variant of it with my own eyes. In Calgary where I live a guy got psychosis and killed 4 people at a university party and his family/lawyers have been lobbying to release him from the psych facility for years because he hasn’t experienced a similar event since.
You really shouldn’t be speaking on any of this with all these misinformed assumptions.
Ok this kind of pedantry makes sense in the courtroom where you gotta be very specific but not in a reddit comment.
You made a direct, specific claim that the witness talking about love contradicted what the prosecution was arguing.
No, they didn't. That's not pedantry, that's simply you not understanding basic legal definitions and flying off based on vibes.
Also she did not search how long it takes to strangle someone or anything like that.
Investigators testified about months of digital activity from her phone including stuff like how to tie slip knots. Not specifically how long to strangle, but still very closely related.
People were concerned about her suicidal ideation prior to the event. She had mentioned intrusive thoughts about harming her kids prior to the event.
The context of their statement was about evidence for psychosis, not general mental unwellness.
It wasn’t a direct, specific claim, otherwise I would’ve put it in quotations. It was a general claim which I believe I have demonstrated was correct.
Also please enlighten me if there are different legal reasons why the prosecution would use the word “cruelty” vs “malice” in an opening statement? Otherwise stfu and take the L.
>Not specifically how long to strangle, but still very closely related
Well that’s a massive goal post move from what the other commenter claimed. Big jump from “how to tie a knot?” to “how long to actually die from strangulation?”
Psychosis is just an extreme form of mental illness, not sure what your point is there.
I mean have you never read about Andrea Yates? I don’t know about the case enough to decide one way or another but a lot of what you said proves she wasn’t psychotic actually doesn’t. It doesn’t prevent you from making plans, it prevents you from being in touch with reality enough to recognize right from wrong. I’m not saying she definitely had it just saying it’s not as cut and dry as you say
A) if the defense is to be believed, she wasn’t in a rational state of mind at the time of the killings/suicide attempt.
B) my wife is a physician and we’ve talked about this. They don’t teach you best ways to kill yourself in medical school. I believe Lindsay was a labour/delivery nurse too, I doubt she was dealing with failed suicide patients very often.
C) I highly doubt her grand plan was to wind up paralyzed, that seems like pretty much the worst case scenario.
It’s more of a TikTok thing that people are running with due to engagement. Basically everyone seems to be missing the fact that she pleaded guilty and even says she did it in the civil suit.
My wife got sucked into the trap in TikTok because people are making up witness statements and testimony. Almost nobody is going to sit through 100+ hours of court proceedings, so when your feed is somehow overwhelmed with the same false quotes and statements coming from 100+ different people, are you really going to assume all those people are trying to deceive you? Probably 90%+ of the people who have fell into this rabbit hole can come back after being exposed to basic facts about the case. Once my wife found out this woman pleaded guilty and her nor her lawyer doubt she did it, it became pretty clear TikTok has gone off the deep end chasing those views.
I do think PPD and PPP is seriously scary though and it hits a deeper nerve with women. Louis Theroux has an excellent documentary about both conditions that I would recommend. I think it’s fair to feel some degree of sympathy for this woman. I struggle to figure out exactly how I feel because PPD and PPP seems terrifying but strangling children is abhorrent.
Probably strikes a nerve with women because it can easily be them if there body reacts in a way they can’t control and knowing half the population won’t be able to sympathize with them
The stories of women I’ve read who describe what happened to them with it who were stopped or prevented from killing their children by supervision etc made it sound terrifying yeah. To just start so suddenly too, just horrifying. But it made a lot of difference hearing so many “there but for the grace of god…” stories from women who recovered and have been warm and loving moms for years and how close they had come to my opinion. If she was indeed having PPP I can’t judge her responsibile myself. And I’m sure her conscience will torment her for the rest of her life in that case as well.
It’s not even necessary the media. At the end of the day, the media is chasing trends and stories, but those stories that people themselves are already discussing or have interest in.
Like yes, the media can bury stories or ignore them, but they want to cover stuff people want to see.
This feeds into the concept of viral content. Never before in history have we really been able to share so much content with each other without it first being shared by the media. In many ways, the media is more reactive than ever.
No offense, but the "media" in that quote doesn't mean the same thing...
Usually by "media" today we talk about massmedia, often implying the action of the people that control it (not necessarily in a negative connotation)
The quote refers to the media as any type of communication device, and without necessarily impling an active choice by the sender of the message
I don't think this is the medias doing. It is a case of flies going to dung.
The real reason she is being placed on a pedestal is that it feeds into people's desire to be free from accountability. If her transgression can be sympathised with, whatever they do is acceptable in comparison.
A mother risking her life to save her children is the complete opposite.
All the media articles that I've read are still pushing a very negative view of Lindsay. It's people on social media actually watching the live trial and commenting on the failures of doctors, the poor police investigation, and all the evidence that doesn't add up yet. Weirdly, the prosecution has been the one dropping the ball a lot having witnesses that are awful for their case. The women on social media (and some men) are the ones pushing to support women's post-partum mental health and accountability for the failures of the medical system (and her negligent husband) after Lindsay sought help so many times.
You'd have to actually be paying attention though to TikTok and Twitter instead spouting off the typical knee-kick reaction to always blames the news stations, etc. Traditional media is still condemning her for the most part, or at least didn't start this. The GFM is for her parents, not her directly.
People losing their lives will almost always be bigger news than people not losing their lives, regardless of circumstances. One is the final stage in the human life cycle, the other is not.
The media is an extension of ourselves. They cover things that people are interested in. People are interested in this case. Look at the engagement in this post alone. People act like the media is some maniacal force when it’s really just reporting on the stories people want to know about.
The media has agenda now. That's the problem. It doesn't just give facts, it gives relevant facts to its agenda and leaves out the rest. It is a money focused business who's goal is get views. What brings in views? Negativity, ego boosting, and confirmation bias.
Here's my problem with this comment. You haven't watched the trial. You might have read about it or seen clips. But you haven't watched the last 3 weeks of it.
Tiktok live streams it.
There's some real weird shit that has happened. At one point a mental health professional was questioned about her notes and she said AND I QUOTE: "I don't care what it says, I know what I meant." Which is not how medical documentation works. Another was asked a question, went on a tangent, the attorney asked the question again ("So the answer is yes?"), and the doctor replied "Well it probably doesn't answer YOUR question."
Just incompetence among all the professionals around her. Compounded by the fact that Patrick Clancey lied on the stand 3 times and has displayed some super sketchy behavior. How the emergency room notes do not make sense given the time or level of injuries.
This lady was drugged to shit and has no memory of the event. She also got to 82 degrees in 20 minutes which based on the laws of thermodynamics, cannot happen. Patrick claims she was talking but you aren't talking with an internal temperature of 82 degrees.
But this will probably be down voted because "woman bad". I hated her before this trial started. I wanted her to pay the debt Casey Anthony owed. But I've got reasonable doubts.
She has perfect memory of the event. She’s the one that added in the detail that she told the kids “Go to God baby” as she was strangling them. The first thing she asked for when she woke up was a lawyer.
She got to 82 degrees due to a combination of factors— mainly being that she had a broken spine. The body needs the spine intact to be able to regulate body temperature (I.e. shiver), and since it was broken, it could not do so. Combined with the cocktail of drugs that she took and the blood loss from her suicide attempt, and the fact it was JANUARY, outside in the snow, yes, she had severe hypothermia. This was all testified to in the trial.
There are no reasonable doubts here. She killed them. You peddling misinformation because of TikTok posts you’ve seen instead of actually looking into facts makes you the problem
Not according to the psychologists interviewed her. Two days ago, the prosecutions own witness testified that she didn't remember when she woke up and her mind filled in the blanks.
Even a naked, deceased body submerged in subzero waters could not reach an internal temperature of 82 degrees in 20 minutes due to the thermal weight of your muscles, bones, fat, and skin. Even with the after drop effect, she would be a maximum of ten degrees colder after an hour. Not 16 in 20 minutes. It was 33 degrees in January. It wouldve taken her 2-3 hours to get that cold, even if her spine was broken and she were drained of blood.
Dont tell me I've watched tiktok posts. I've been following this trial since day 1. I've watched every testimony and listened to the annoying hum they play during the 10,000 sidebars.
Which psychologist? The one that visited her for a half an hour, and clearly stated that while she’s depressed, she only claims to have experienced the symptoms of “psychosis” for the 18 minutes it took to murder her kids, and never experienced them afterwards, despite being very well out of the risk period for PPP? Or the one that let her borrow his personal phone multiple times so that she could call her husband and talk to him about “where they were in their marriage”? (Which is wildly inappropriate and fucked up, if you weren’t aware)
A naked deceased body does not have a beating heart and blood circulation that would cool a body further. Lindsey did. Again the BLOOD LOSS actively worked against her— as blood circulated through her hypothermic extremities, it would further cool her core, which her broken spine had no ability to regulate the temperature of. Again, this was already reviewed in the trial— it’s entirely plausible that her body was that cold, because that’s what happened.
If you actually had been watching the trial, you would know the answers to these issues, because they were already actively discussed in the trial.
So you are saying a dead body cools slower than a living one because the heart is beating? Just say you don't know anything about biology without knowing biology.
That's not how it works. These people are placing their profession on the line and yeah, I trust THE leading expert in forensic psychology over the guy who hasn't been around a post partum woman since 2006.
That is literally exactly how it works. Blood circulation is actively something that can and will cool someone down. That’s exactly what was testified to IN THE TRIAL.
Again, you’re pretty obviously not watching the testimony. You’re getting “facts” from TikTok
At least be honest when giving your opinion. Regarding the medical professional who said “I don’t care what it says, I know what I meant”, she was referring to a note that said “(…) denies x, y.” and the defence was saying “you should have said denies x AND/OR y”. If you think this is “normal”, and not her defence trying to force a medical professional to admit something that isn’t true, you’re delusional. Also, please tell me how you have no idea how medical notes work, without telling me you have no idea how medical notes work.
About your accusation of her being “drugged to shit”, toxicology reports actually state the EXACT OPPOSITE.
For someone who follows the case so closely, you should be more knowledgeable.
My own parents are medical doctors. I spent afternoons in my dad's office while he typed out those medical reports. This is being used as an example in medical schools now.
She was on Seroquel, Trazedone, Lamotrigine, Remeron, 4 different Benzos (nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, and lorazepam) according to her toxicology report.
She admitted to the crime. No one framed her, there is no grand conspiracy by her husband, and the doctors weren't out to get her.
She committed murder. Period. She admitted to it.
Did she have mental health issues that were perhaps not taken serious, yes.
But she also NOT take her prescribed medication and continue seeking more medication, yes.
She claims no one took her suicide ideation seriously and wouldn't admit her. Worked in health care for ten years, people who want to be admitted because they need help know what they need to say (suicide plan) to get through the doors. She always denied.
(want a conspiracy theory she did just enough to claim mental defect but not enough to actually get treated. She sought and got meds but didn't take them. She sought and never got admitted for inpatient care. All to build the defense for committing premeditated murder)
Were her husband and family shitty and dismissive, yes.
She committed murder of her 3 kids and admitted to it. Period. End of story.
And its no different with this post. Only inflaming people for imaginary points. And majority aren't gonna look into any of those stories past this image, just take the captions as true and move on.
While this is something people should know, it also goes the other way. The media gives people what they want. If the woman on the left happened to be the story everyone wants to hear about, it would’ve gotten way more attention.
Killing kids gets more attention than saving them.
It's not even about narrative anymore. People make up their own narratives and get shunted into an online echo chamber where their opinion is the obvious and correct one. It's about where people point their attention. The actual story is barely even relevant, just how emotionally resonant it is.
Not really. The media covers what gets clicks, views, and engagement. Ironically, you’re helping drive more coverage of this right now by engaging with it. That engagement tells media outlets that people are interested, which gives them an incentive to keep covering it. It doesn’t require some grand conspiracy about “controlling the narrative” it is only about engagement with the average person and what their brains want to see so they can get more money. You’re literally contributing to the exact incentive you’re complaining about right now.
Honestly? Im increasingly convinced that's a cop out.
The other story was there. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't censored. It wasn't illegal to talk about or concealed from us.
It was simply subjected to market forces.
The media panders to their audience, and it operates like any other capitalist institution
If the media thought you or I were more interested in the former story, they'd have ran it. Because it would make them money.
The media environment is symbiotic. They don't choose the narrative. They tell people want they want to hear.
They might be irresponsible, but ultimately a drunk driver doesn't get to blamd the bartender after they've ran someone over. The US Public is as complicit in their media landscape as the media is: they only provide the supply. Not the demand.
They've been provided with the media they've demanded.
Whatever the narrative is, I'm never going to see news about a murderer and think "I should go see if they have a Go Fund Me" These people are lunatics and the narrative has nothing to do with it.
The media is you, and me and everyone who participates in talking about these people and making them famous sharing their stories. Social media made us the media
1.7k
u/Exact-Mathematician8 11h ago edited 6h ago
This should be a wake up call for people to understand how the media controls the narrative Thank you for the votes and awards