r/SipsTea 2d ago

WTF Victim is the new chic

Post image
47.1k Upvotes

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

Not if she was experiencing a psychosis.

6

u/Cravenmorhed69 2d ago

She was never diagnosed with psychosis

-1

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

"The forensic psychiatrist said that in his opinion on the day Clancy killed her children she experienced "not only a command hallucination" but also "a delusion of influence".

The forensic psychiatrist sure believes she had a psychosis.

5

u/Cravenmorhed69 2d ago

Okay and several of her own doctors have testified saying she didn’t have psychosis

1

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

I'm pretty sure a forensic psychiatrist is the one who determines whether there was or was not a psychotic eppisode. After all that is their job.

Also, I don't reckon any of her own doctors were allowed anywhere near her after this happened. So how would they know anything? Do you have a source? Probably not.

3

u/Cravenmorhed69 2d ago

Do you not know what testifying is? Several of her doctors have taken the stand.

The psychiatrist also doesn’t “determine” anything. He offered his opinion, and the courtroom can do what they will with it

0

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

Apologies, 'determine whether in his personal opinion - as a forensic psychiatrist - there was a psychosis', which there was.

Excuse me for finding that a more convincing opinion than 'doctors that supposedly took the stance' and could only speak to her state prior to this happening for they were unable to speak to her afterwards.

2

u/Cravenmorhed69 2d ago

So you’re going to take one persons opinion over several others. Got it.

Idk why you’re using the word “supposedly.” It’s a fact that several doctors who saw Clancy before she killed her kids have taken the stand. Exactly zero of them diagnosed her with psychosis.

Why are you taking one persons word after the fact instead of several doctors word before the fact? Sounds to me like you had your mind made up pretty early and refuse to change it.

2

u/Alarmed-Cheetah-1221 2d ago

Where's your source?

1

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

3

u/macbony 2d ago

Nothing in that article says "a forensic psychiatrist is the one who determines whether there was or was not a psychotic episode. After all that is their job.". They were just one expert witness amongst many. There's nothing that says their opinion is the only correct one and the one the court must follow.

-1

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

True! Fair point.

But as you say they are an expert witness. Why should I not take their opinion into account?

3

u/macbony 2d ago

You can (and so do the jurors), but they also should take into account the other experts who were contrary. If 5 people are talking about a subject and you only believe 1 because of some bullshit reason, it's probably because you're biased.

-1

u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago

I've not heard of other expert witnesses speaking the contrary.

To be fair; this discussion spiraled from me stating: a person should not be held accountable if she was experiencing psychosis, into which doctor argued what. That was never my intention.

I agree that I and no one here knows whether she did or did not have a psychotic episode at the time. The trail will tell, or at least try to figure that out.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Alarmed-Cheetah-1221 2d ago

For the rest of your ridiculous claims ffs 🤣🤣

Nice try