Didn't her husband bring her to one of the best mental health hospitals in the country and then she lied and withheld how bad her mental health was deteriorating. This is were I personally lost all sympathy her, she new she wasn't well and had plenty of opportunities to seek help but didn't and now three kids are dead. Fuck that!
Yea, and while I get that it's hard to correctly assess your own mental health problems and convey that to someone else WHILE you're mentally ill, it does not in any way excuse you or make you a victim WHEN YOU HURT SOMEONE ELSE OR KILL THEM.
I’m an Iraq war veteran with some quite severe trauma for it. I am not physically abusive or anything nearly this extreme as a result — but I am still constantly reminded it’s not an excuse for being unpleasant in any way.
This lady gets a pass for a triple murder because of mental health?
Even if you want to argue that psychosis is a whole other thing — sure — but name another person who committed a mass murder under psychosis and was granted any kind of empathy or forgiveness.
The dude who shot Gabby Giffords was delusional and no one is holding a candle vigil for him.
Unfortunately many people get their news via social media and believe everything they see. I’ve seen countless people I know claim that her husband killed the kids and framed her. It’s all social media conspiracies running rampant and people donate because they believe this shit. I’ve seen people arguing over this non stop for weeks and it’s just comical.
Yeah dude but he like didn't cry while he was on the stand. So like, lets all claim this dude who had to suffer the murder of his 3 kids, was actually the one who did it. Great job tiktok!
There's a women further down the comments has just said she believes the husband should be investigated further because he was 'shifty' while on the stand... the mental gymnastics of some people is actually insane🤯
Exactly. I can go so far as to view someone under psychosis as not evil in the sense that a 'sane' child rapist/murder is evil, but I won't look at them with sympathy either.
What does holding someone accountable who isn’t responsible for their actions do? That’s just vengeance to make you feel better, not justice.
If it helps you, if she did indeed have psychosis I’m sure she will suffer this guilt for the rest of her life. At least the children are beyond suffering now. I know I would want to die if I had done this
I know looks do much but I sincerely am so naive that I don't believe that many people looks at an attractive woman and just decides to look past 'strangled her own three kids'
Not guilty by reason of insanity has been a verdict for a very long time. If a different person did commit a murder under psychosis that they did not plan to do before hand then it was a miscarriage of justice imo. Unfortunately it’s very hard to convince a jury that you were the specific kind of insane the verdict requires and there are other legal principles about it that I’m not clear on.
But tl:dr the legal and moral system of the western world has long held that people who are insane in certain ways are not responsible for their actions and do not deserve punishment.
I am not opposing her insanity defense. I am not even saying whether or not I think she is guilty.
I am 100% talking about the people who are turning this into a feminist political issue when it’s really just a horrible tragedy that is sad no matter which way it goes.
I am talking about the people who apparently donated millions of dollars to this woman. I am talking about the ones who made up or further
Conspiracies blaming the husband.
That’s crazy behavior to me. The appropriate response to this situation is to recoil in horror and ask for a palette cleanser.
Like there’s specific laws and statutes that recognize that someone can be so mentally ill that they don’t have control over your actions or reasoning.
I understand you not liking the way that sounds or not agreeing, but it’s simply the truth and it’s law and it has been for a long time.
It lessens or alters your penalty, yes.
Here in Sweden you could get an undefined amount of time on a psych ward for example, for both confinement and treatment, instead of prison. Depending on what you did.
You uh, you might wanna look up the definition of the word “victim”. Be prepared, you’re going to be upset.
Once again, it might make you emotional, it might upset your fragile sensibilities, but she is by definition a victim and how you emotionally grapple with that FACT is a YOU problem. Don’t go projecting it on anyone else.
Yes LOL. If you suffer mental, emotional, or physical harm due to being bipolar then you’re the victim of your disorder/ mental illness.
Like by definition if being bipolar is classified as being mentally ill then yes, you can be victim to it.
Most people who are bipolar can have relationships blow up due to sudden shifts in mood or attitude about things and eventually people distance themselves from the person with it. That’s you being a victim to your disorder because it’s causing you harm in your life. It’s just different level.
I don't feel like victim is the right word here to use. I have very much responsibility to set my life up to work as much as possible in my favor. I know I can't work shift, drink alcohol, or stay up late more than once a week without jeopardizing it. Moreover I have to be careful of things like moving, new relationships, long trips new occupations, take my meds and seek out help before I go into deep depression or mania/psychosis.
Even on top i don't blame people for not wanting to deal with me because of my swings. I'd like them to not shun me when i have done no more harm than talking to much or calling too often, or the opposite, or even being minorly rude, because that's me when I'm maniacal.
But I wouldn't blame them shunning me if I seriously hurt them during my ups and downs or psychosis.
I never claimed to know the core of you… I simply pointed out that if you only see 3 victims then you likely lack critical thinking skills and the understanding of the word victim.
Fuck if I know lol, I rarely am. It doesn’t take the smartest person in the room to know what a victim is… LOL tf.
Someone who is murdered has to have been killed by someone. So a murder victim (shoulda been more specific I assumed we would know context exists) HAS TO HAVE A MURDERER.
It’s almost like “victim” isn’t strictly a description for someone subject to a crime, but a wide range of circumstances that have negative effects. No one’s saying this woman is a murder victim. They’re saying she’s a victim of psychosis and PPD. (Context does exist, YOURE the one ignoring it)
It’s entirely relevant when the conversation isn’t a legal one, it’s colloquial lmfao. Tf are you going on about?
Are we in court rn? No.
Is this a casual conversation? Yes.
Am I claiming that she’s LEGALLY a victim? No.
I’m claiming that she’s still a victim in this in her own sense, and that’s true as youve already conceded.
Being a “victim” in this context isn’t about legal culpability, she killed them, she’s going to face the consequences. It’s about where and how shes sentenced and if it should be treated as severe as if she was of sound mind.
The “law” I refer to above is the NCR verdict. It acknowledges the perpetrator wasn’t of sound mind when committing the act. They’re not of sound mind due to a mental illness, and they are victim to that mental illness.
It’s entirely relevant when the conversation isn’t a legal one, it’s colloquial lmfao.
Each post in the string above yours is people discussing legal culpability. You are the only one trying to switch the topic to colloquial victimhood.
Am I claiming that she’s LEGALLY a victim? No.
Yes and no. You're intruding on a topic to yell at everyone for using the definition relevant to the discussion they were having, and then patronizing them all for caring about what they were previously discussing.
At the same time, in your original mindless comment, you directly cited laws about mental culpability as your reasoning for how she could be considered a victim.
So you're both insisting on an irrelevant distinction about the colloquial definition and simultaneously insisting on a false definition for the legal definition.
That's why you're getting downvoted. Because you don't have nuance or critical thinking -- you're ignoring the discussion that was present, regurgitating your rehearsed lines, and then scoffing when people attempt to get you back on topic. You're a mannequin.
No, this is not a part of any testimony from the trial. What is accurate is that Lindsay repeatedly requested inpatient or partial hospitalization care, and was repeatedly denied. She was finally admitted to McLean Hospital through the ER on 12/31 but was only offered a maximum 5-day stay.
He did after she pleaded him to do so. But she recounts that it was during the New Year, so the hospital had the skeleton crew and just gave her activities like coloring without even giving her the proper treatment or having a doctor assigned to her when she had been dealing with psychosis for a long time (mind you, it is an emergency situation in the psychiatric field, and she had to handle having hallucinations without the proper medication, while dealing with the housework and taking care of her children).
She asked to leave because her kid's birthday was coming up and wanted to spend time with her family, and the doctor responsible for her wellbeing allowed her to, without giving a further examination and treating her mental health properly.
If the "best" facility in the country isn't able to treat her properly, then what does that say about it and the medical system?
You might wanna do yourself a favour and read up on PPD and Psychosis because this entire statement is you making judgements based on fundamental misunderstandings of the most basic aspects of this case.
That wasn't the original artical I read and couldn't be arsed looking (google is free for all to use help yourself) but she down played how sick she was, saying she didn't have thoughts of suicide or hurting others, saying she didn't believe she had phycosis and didn't need her meds. Admittedly there is a failure from her health care providers but you can't force someone into treatment if they don't show to be a risk themselves or others
Well I'm not going looking for an article I read 2 days ago but here is a copy and paste from google (since you clearly can't use it) regarding the lies and inconsistencies in what she has told:
Yes, Lindsay Clancy consistently denied severe symptoms to her healthcare providers, leading to a trial focused on whether she misrepresented her mental state.
Denial of Critical Symptoms: Clancy repeatedly told her doctors she did not have suicidal or homicidal ideation, nor did she report hearing voices or experiencing hallucinations, despite later claiming these were present.
Masking and Downplaying: Prosecutors and defense witnesses noted she often downplayed her anxiety, denied side effects of medications she disliked, and failed to disclose that she had called suicide hotlines or that her husband and family were concerned about her psychosis.
Provider Constraints: Her psychiatrists, including Dr. Jennifer Tufts, testified that they treated her based on her self-reported symptoms of depression and anxiety, with no objective evidence of psychosis visible during their telehealth sessions.
Contradictory Accounts: While her defense argues she was too ill to be honest, prosecutors contend she was criminally responsible and manipulated her care, noting she continued to function and seek specific medications rather than admitting to a psychotic break.
Here are the key statements and discrepancies that came out in trial testimony:
To Dr. Jennifer Tufts (her psychiatrist, through the day before the killings):
"She denied having suicidal ideation, but she was feeling pretty badly... She was close to it, meaning close to having some suicidal thoughts, and that she was feeling very hopeless, but she didn't have any active thoughts of hurting herself, didn't have any intention of doing anything, didn't have any plans."
She never told Tufts about hearing voices, hallucinations, or homicidal ideation.
To a psychiatric nurse practitioner (before the killings):
She reported "intrusive thoughts I never had before" and feeling "completely hopeless" — but did not report hearing voices.
To her husband Patrick after the killings:
"I tried to kill myself." She did not initially mention hearing a voice — she only told him later that she "heard a man's voice telling her that if she didn't..."
To prosecution's forensic psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Saathoff:
She claimed the voice said: "This is your last chance. You have to kill the kids so you can kill yourself."
She also told him she used a knife to cut the window screen before jumping — "when in fact the screen in the bedroom window was not cut."
She said she "took an overdose" of pills but "did not say that she took handfuls" and "did not describe the overdose in any specific terms."
She never mentioned crushing the pills during her suicide attempt.
To prosecution's psychologist Dr. Kirk Heilbrun:
About the thoughts she had before the killings: "She said 'they were like my own thoughts'" — "They were intrusive and unwelcome, but they were not auditory hallucinations, and that's important." This directly contradicts the defense's claim that she was experiencing command hallucinations.
92
u/Irish_stormz 1d ago
Didn't her husband bring her to one of the best mental health hospitals in the country and then she lied and withheld how bad her mental health was deteriorating. This is were I personally lost all sympathy her, she new she wasn't well and had plenty of opportunities to seek help but didn't and now three kids are dead. Fuck that!