Was Lindsay Clancy driven by severe mental illness or pure evil intent?

[msc545]

Do you think that she might have been under the influence of a terrible psychiatric illness that caused the behavior that we now know about? Or do you think in some way this was just the product of an evil criminal mind that knew exactly what it was doing?

[Effably]

I have not followed the case all that closely.

As far as I know the experts brought in held conflicting views.

We do know that she was diagnosed with severe depression, psychosis and more prior to the murders. There is no real doubt she was a mentally ill person.

The experts hold split opinions on her accountability at the time of the crime. Basically the doctor who treated her before, and seemingly did not do his job well, maintains she can not be held accountable. Curiously he has not written down most of the material he used to support this. Mebtions of voices and alike is not part of the records and that in itself would be a grave misconduct. It is difficult to trust him.

Out of the remaining four, one believes she was not accountable and three that she was. Most of the rest call out her testimonies as sounding fake, made up and incongruent with other cases.

I feel that if the experts are split it is difficult for us to not be. She was most certainly mentally ill. Whether that prevented her from any rational thought? Who can know? The experts are just guessing too.

Not to speak ill of psychiatrists and psychologists but it is a profession notorious for being absolutely awful at agreeing on any diagnosis and it is, I believe, common knowledge you can just visit another doctor and you will eventually get whatever diagnosis you want. They have to partially operate on feelings after all. Even the value judgement of "Is this clail true?" is mostly an emotional assessment.

[msc545]

We're not wrong about the lack of agreement, and the reasoning for this is that there is a wide variety of symptoms that we see at any given time. What I see today in a patient, you, as another doctor, might see tomorrow, and we might arrive at somewhat different diagnoses. That being said, some things, like psychosis, have fairly consistent symptoms, although they do not always arise at the same time. It would be very difficult, if you did a good exam, to not recognize them.

[Effably]

I agree. But that is where the guesswork comes in. At some point all of them had to ask "Is this woman telling me the truth or lying?". It is not as if I could not google up the DSM-V criteria for an illness. Read a few people talking about it and make a, in terms of claimed symptoms and how they manifest, very compelling case.

I agree the definitions are fairly tight.

I'd loosely mention Rosenhan's experiment "On being sane in insane places" from 1973. I assume most of us studied it in Highschool. It is a very compelling study to me when it comes to what you and I are discussing. If nothing else, very interesting material.

[msc545]

Truth or lying is the least of the distinctions that need to be made and the easiest.

[Effably]

If that was the case, surely we'd just have a judge learn that skill and call it a day?

It is not that easy. Evidently.

[msc545]

It is not easy, and in many ways, it's not even a learned skill. For most of us that do this, it is an innate talent that requires a great deal of education in order for us to make sense of it and use it effectively. In the U. S., not less than 6 years of college, and in most cases, a lot more time than that.

[Coercion_Is_Trauma]

All evil intentioned murdering comes from mental illness.

For some reason, pleading insanity to dodge murder charges is like hundreds of times more frequent than pleading insanity for rape charges.

So it is a fair question to ask: would you treat her differently if she raped 3 children, or would you agree that all child rapists/murderers are always mentally ill and it shouldn't be a question whether they are or not? ㅤ

[msc545]

The criminal act does not dictate the presence or absence of mental illness. What dictates the presence or absence of mental illness is the presence or absence of symptomatology.

[Coercion_Is_Trauma]

Even common phobias are classified as diagnosable mental illnesses. There often are no visible symptoms other than e. g. stabbing the person you have phobias of. All crimes against children are insane. What you probably mean to ask is if her specific illnesses were rare or common ones.

[msc545]

Of course, there are visible symptoms of phobia, and you just don't know what to look for because you're not trained to do that. The word "insane" is a legal term, not a medical one. Don't need to ask if her specific illnesses are rare or common. I know what the frequency is. I do this for a living.

[msmissydc]

It was probably a case of postpartum psychosis. That doesn't make it any less gruesome, though. The only difference is that it was avoidable by functioning healthcare system.

[msc545]

I think there is fairly good evidence that it was postpartum psychosis that caused this, and unfortunately, we do not have a functioning healthcare system at all.

[Sevenpointfive]

i think in your subconcious mind your true instincts come out. but you can't separate those thoughts because you are not in control. so i don't know? i personally think the person who is guilty knew what they were doing. she failed her suicide and doesn't want to live in prison. I don't know why? if she wanted to die i think this is where it's going anyway. she should just plead guilty and get an expedited death of her choice.

and that doesn't add up to me. therefore she knew she was killing her children and faked a suicide gone wrong. this was her plan. she's guilty as sin.

[msc545]

Sorry but I don't think you know the first thing about what actually happened. You're making up fairy tales and stories because you can't make sense out of these events. Most people cannot.

[Sevenpointfive]

i just told you what happened.

[BCRanger10]

She was on, what, 12 different meds and was a labor and delivery nurse? She'd seen at least five different therapists. Patrick Clancy took time off work to help her and hired a nanny to help her. She had plenty of help. Plenty, I tell you.

No, I don't blame "tHe SyStEm" and I don't blame mental illness. At some point, we need to start blaming the ones who make the decisions. And in this case, that means the evil, diabolical woman that is Lindsay Clancy. She planned it, she did it.

That one juror who stopped the "not guilty" verdict is a hero.

[msc545]

So you think that the number of people she saw is an indication of the quality of care she got correct?

[NathanDavis]

experts and witnesses who saw the evidence already declared she wasn't experiencing an episode

but I haven't seen any of that case so I can't think any of it myself

[msc545]

Those were the prosecutors' experts. Of course, they said she wasn't experiencing an episode, as if they would know what an episode looked like. There were no witnesses.

[NathanDavis]

just like every other expert and witness from the defense did allege the opposite, yes... I know how that works

but everyone else who was there after and before the acts... did NOT witness any episode whatsoever

which is very convenient, that for only the little time she needed to commit the crime... she had the episode but before and after... none of that

[msc545]

These conditions do not present themselves visually. At least not to observers.

[NathanDavis]

so, they cannot prove she did experience it, right?

[msc545]

We also can't prove that she didn't. Auditory hallucinations are only heard by the person who hears them. Visual hallucinations are only seen by the person who sees them.

[NathanDavis]

as I understand... but I could be wrong about it

if she's declared to be "incompetent for trial" then she will have to go to a mental facility for an actual evaluation and confinement instead... right?

or is she going to be declared "innocent of a crime" because "the voices" told her to do it?

[msc545]

You have your terminology mixed up. She's already been tried, so she's not going to be declared incompetent for trial. If the district attorney decides to try her again, then she's going to be tried again with yet another jury. They can do this an infinite number of times, technically, although it gets pretty expensive and time-consuming. She's not going to be declared innocent under any circumstances because she's not. What might happen, however, is that she may be found to have no criminal responsibility because she was unable to control herself. That is technically a different finding. Innocent is not going to happen. At this point, the only two things that can all the can happen are:
1. She spends many, many years in prison.
2. She spends many, many years in a hospital.
Those are the only two choices.

[msc545]

It is arguable as to which one is worse.

[NathanDavis]

I guess the second, would be of more help, in this case

[jshm2]

Neither.

Not followed the whole case, but it seems there was not too much coherent thinking going on.

[AngryCarl3]

I'm not fully persuaded that a sane person would cut their own throat and then jump out of a window. It's just a pity she didn't do that BEFORE murdering three innocent children.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

it's EVIL. I don't care what alleged mental health issue a person has. Murdering anyone is evil and should be punished by death penalty. The punishment should equal the crime.

[msc545]

See, what happens if the person who committed the crime was not in control of their brain at the time they did it? Still okay to murder them in response to that?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Yes.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

it would be okay for me to kill her in self-defense if she attacked me, regardless of her mental condition. Therefore, I conclude she deserves the death penalty.

[msc545]

What you just said absolutely makes no sense.

[ProbablyClueless]

I'm sure her mental illness is/was real. My big hang up is that her behavior demonstrated a clear and consistent ability to control herself.

[msc545]

There are different kinds of control that one has over oneself. Control over mental behavior and mental phenomena is not nearly the same thing as control over motor behavior, like the sort of motor behavior that you might use to strangle a child. I would not call what she did a clear and consistent ability to control herself whatsoever. What you are suggesting is true: nobody would sleepwalk because, in order to sleepwalk, according to your hypothesis, the person would have to be awake.