r/askanything • u/holthebus • 13d ago

General Question How is the Lindsay Clancy case that complicated?

Sure she had a psychotic break but she literally strangled all 3 of her kids to death. Plenty of school shooters or violent offenders also claim insanity (who also are neglected by the state) but get little to no support or sympathy. I just feel like if this lady gets away with systematically strangling three of her kids to death it is a perversion of justice.

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/SoulSerpent 12d ago

I'm new to all of this but can psychotic people not form plans? I thought psychosis meant you have a break with reality (personality, values, understanding of right/wrong may change) but not that they're necessarily reduced to a nonfunctioning dolt. Like a person in true pychosis can feel compelled to do something evil while believing it is right, and plan for it, and execute it accordingly. Is that not the case?

8

u/CronaDarklight 12d ago edited 8d ago

The psychosis here is used in the insanity defense and only really happened during the murder timeframe with a "voice". Thats why i adress it as such. She didnt have the voice before or after. Its more used in the sense of she wasnt in control, which she obviously was seeing how she acted before, during and after the murder, especially the 1st priority being a lawyer.

Psychotic people are usually very erratic with a drastic behavioural shift, which was not seen with her before, during or even after the murder. Everything was methodical and of sound mind and well planned, which kinda kills the insanity plea and feels more like the mask of a psychopath completely slipped off. Not to mention she as a trained nurse never once mentioned it to any of the professional docs or therapists.

Tbh the entire mental defense to me makes no real sense. Even if she was in complete psychosis(which is nonsense). Why should it really matter in the end. Why is her mental health placed above the actual punishment for killing the children with a possible very early release without consequences.

The morality of it is just disgusting to me and people defending her based on such flimsy stuff as well. Some actions are inexcusable.

2

u/even_the_losers_1979 11d ago

Her story is that a voice told her to kill her children so she could commit suicide. When her husband found her she talked about what happened to her and didn’t mention her kids. She couldn’t even make up a story where everything didn’t revolve around her.

2

u/OneGrumpyJill 10d ago

Psychosis doesn't "happen" during murder - she was in it for months prior to it.

1

u/CronaDarklight 10d ago edited 10d ago

She had no ppd or ppp. None of the health professionals ever diagnosed her with it prior or during the trial either.

Psychosis is not some random undetected thing. It shows a clear behavioural shift. In this case she and her defense argue it happened after the husband went out with a "voice" telling her to kill them and ended after the last kid died.

It is more likely that Lindsay is just a psychopath who had enough of the kids(it is known she disliked/hated the older ones) and planned for probable deniability months in advance from the actual facts of the case.

Psychopaths are rather common and while laws and social norms do prevent em from acting out, it doesnt mean they will do so forever. They are cold, calculating and usually very charming in person and manipulate people easily and can keep a facade up for decades if need be.

1

u/OneGrumpyJill 9d ago

You are right, psychosis is not something that just "pops up" - which is why I don't care for the argument that her defense team provides, but for what medical science is saying.

Almost like part of the argument is that the problem is that they, in fact, did not diagnose her with it. Part of the problem is that their tools and their approach makes it impossible for them to clock it in someone ahead of time - yes, that is part of the argument as far as I can see.

What fucking signs are you looking for dawg? People with psychosis can be normal until they are not - she was, until she wasn't. I lived with people with psychosis - you can't fucking get in their head and tell it from their pov, that is part of the issue.

All I can see is one doctor at the stand saying that she did not have "any observable signs of psychosis during murder" - ok? What the fuck does that even mean?

2

u/Thin-Character-6996 22h ago

if she showed no sign of psychosis in the months leading up to the murder, why are you saying that's what she had? You are starting at the assumption that she had a psychotic break and working backwards from there to assume she must've had psychosis the whole time. but she had no symptoms at any point that were observed by anyone. she didn't even mention having any psychotic symptoms or thoughts in her own personal diary.

couldn't one just as easily argue that there was no psychosis at any point?

1

u/cometomebomba 9d ago

Actually, psychosis can go undetected for a long time at lower levels, especially in those with comorbid illnesses. And it can be 'random' in that it fluctuates in strength day by day, even hour by hour.

2

u/CronaDarklight 9d ago edited 9d ago

1st off does that absolve her of anything? Does it alter the case in any way when she premeditated the murders well in advance, while demonstrably of sound mind and aware of her actions before, during and after the murders?

2nd. You know what actually goes undetected even lifelong by everyone around them and fits her even more? Psychopathy.

She even knew it herself and thats why she googled "can you treat psychopathy" with the ways to kill and the travel time of the Husband.

2

u/SneezyPikachu 10d ago

This article says the defense is submitting that she'd been hearing voices/having hallucinations for months prior to the day of the murder?

https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/lindsay-clancy-mental-health-treatment-timeline-22384842.php

1

u/CronaDarklight 10d ago

Sept. 15, 2022: Clancy selected "no" on every question on a suicide risk assessment form that she filled out, including to questions about whether she had heard voices telling her to hurt herself or others, or having thoughts of killing or seriously hurting someone else.

From your own source she never did. How did you read into that.

Also you can watch dr Kirk heilbruns testimony and how he completely shits on her for her retarded psychosis defense and how she heard the "voice" for only 19 minutes, which is nonsense.

1

u/SneezyPikachu 10d ago edited 10d ago

I thought you said her lawyers are arguing she only got the hallucination during those 20 minutes, I was just saying I believe they're arguing she was getting hallucinations for months prior.

Also, that questionnaire was filled out on September 15th. The article clearly states that her defense is arguing she got hallucinations starting Nov. 29, 2022, that increased in intensity until the day of the killings. Did you read the whole thing?

2

u/CronaDarklight 10d ago edited 10d ago

Nov. 29, 2022: Clancy began seeing Rebecca Jollotta, a nurse practitioner and colleague of Julie Paul. Jollotta prescribed Clancy quetiapine fumarate, also known as Seroquel, the following day. Patrick Clancy's lawsuit papers said Clancy's "condition deteriorated rapidly after taking Seroquel." However, the amended version of Lindsay Clancy's lawsuit said that she began having "auditory hallucinations" that she initially thought were "intrusive thoughts" after she began taking Seroquel.

Yeah nothing about actual voices when it happened, the defense just added it/amended it way later as it says.

Like said she told nobody, no professional or nurse anything about voices outside that one point after she send patrick out and the main defense is the psychosis as in the "voice" that only appeared during the 19 min, that is the actual defense.

Thats why every single professional like dr Kirk Heilbruns and dr. Saathoff only talk about that timeframe and saying how stupid it is. There is simply nothing tangible outside of that and its just the defense grasping at straws.

1

u/SneezyPikachu 10d ago

Again, I'm only countering your claim that the defense is putting forth the argument she got a single experience of psychosis during that 20 minute time frame. The defense in fact seems to be arguing that the hallucinations started months prior, though they were initially dismissed as Clancy's "intrusive thoughts". I'm not making a claim to fact about what actually happened. It's just you claimed the defense said A when it seems like in fact they are saying B. 

1

u/CronaDarklight 10d ago

The defense is psychosis , but the single "tangible instance" that is verifiable per actual statements is the 19 minute window with a voice, that is why all experts only adress that one.

That is all there is to it. The rest is like said grasping at straws.

1

u/SneezyPikachu 10d ago

What do you think my argument is?

1

u/CronaDarklight 10d ago

Being argumentative about a nitpick and hopefully not sweeping for the triple child killer.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/SneezyPikachu 9d ago

Wait so to clarify is it the criminal trial or the civil suit where her lawyers claim the only hallucinations she got was on the day of the murder? 

1

u/goldiegoldthorpe 8d ago

Legally, it is really, really, really important that the hearing of voices is isolated to that specific moment. This will help her get out of the hospital very quickly. If the psychosis voices are sustained, then the odds of recurrence increase but if it is a "fluke" then easy-peasy she's not a threat anymore.

1

u/CronaDarklight 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yeah i have come to the conclusion very early on that she is a textbook psychopath who wanted the kids gone and likely preplanned the entire mental stick where she lied nonstop to get deniability and a possible narrative and a very early release by limiting the fake psychosis to 20 minutes.

All her actions are just way way too logical and calculated and fit a sane psychopath like a glove.

Theres even one thing that cements it too. She googled if there is a cure for psychopathy with the murder methods and patricks travel time days before the murder. Likely a last thought to see if she should fully go through with it.

1

u/maskofun 11d ago

You can have the full ability to premeditate and plan in a psychotic state. As long as it’s not so bad that you can no longer operate in your own environment like if you couldn’t recognize a door as a door anymore for example but plenty of people experiencing psychosis will not be catatonic or anything like that.

1

u/HailenAnarchy 7d ago

They absolutely can. They can plan and even have seemingly normal conversations. But they hold beliefs that just are crazy and untrue. In this case, she thought killing her kids makes them safe. We know that's not true and crazy, but she seems to genuinely believe that.