Replies

Well now you DO know what I meant.

I listened to a whole lot of this trial. I heard all the testimony as to what a good and loving mother she had been - I didn’t hear a single word against her from the people who knew her best and observed her the closest. I heard about the lousy medical care - much of it not even in person - that she received, and the long list of constantly changing drugs, almost ALL of which carry warnings of homicidal and suicidal ideation.

There’s no way I could have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I would have found not guilty due to insanity, or whatever is the Massachusetts equivalent. That’s the only HONEST conclusion I could come to had I been on that jury.

Well, that's an opinion.

It's also an opinion that if she was a he, he'd be in prison with the death penalty.

and that if she killed three puppies, she'd be in prison and then harassed and intimidated for the rest of her life

and that if she killed three black children, she wouldn't be safe anywhere in the United States

So, the female jurors didn't look at what she did but who she did it to and found it completely acceptable.

I listened to a whole lot of this trial. I heard all the testimony...

Apparently you're not listening to the juror who's publicly stating that from the beginning this was an opportunity serve an agenda, not the public.

Until her next trial, Lindsay Clancy is available to babysit your grandchildren.

There’s no way I could have found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

She murdered all three of their children. There is no doubt that she did that. Her own defense attorney didn't dispute that.

I would have found not guilty due to insanity...

I heard about the lousy medical care - much of it not even in person - that she received, and the long list of constantly changing drugs, almost ALL of which carry warnings of homicidal and suicidal ideation.

So is it your position that any murderer who happens to be on a psychotropic medication (nearly all of which carry warning labels about suicidal thoughts - and by extrapolation homicidal thoughts) should be found not guilty and just walk free?

Being on medication or emotionally disturbed shouldn't be a get out of jail free card. The insanity defense used to only apply to people so mentally handicapped and delusional that they didn't even know what they were doing or that it was illegal. No matter how "depressed" someone is, they know what murder is and that murder is illegal.

As to your ad populum argument that your position is the correct one because all but one juror found her not guilty, surely you're aware of the fact that lawyers pad juries with sympathetic individuals, in this case, a pack of feminist harpies. Of course they would find her not guilty, even if she didn't have her meds or "depression" as a flimsy excuse.

I heard all the testimony as to what a good and loving mother she had been

Even the worst pyschopathic killers in the history of criminal justice can usually dredge up friends who'll tell the jury what wonderful people the perps are (I'm sure Ted Bundy could find plenty of people to say how charming and fun to be around he could be).

This kind of testimony carries absolutely zero weight, or rather it shouldn't, except for those easily duped by courtroom tricks of glib defense attorneys. The facts of a murder trump stories of what a wonderful person a killer was.

This wasn't a ‘did she do it or didn't she do it’ case. It was a ‘yes she did it, but did she know what she was doing?’ case. In other words, did she have ‘temporary insanity’.

Massachusetts is different from many other states in that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the person was sane at the time they committed the crime. In other states the burden is on the defense to prove insanity at the time of the crime. There are problems with both, IMHO.

Approximately 1 in 6 Americans are on anti-depressants at any given time (~57.1 million Americans). The idea that any of 57.1 million Americans can be excused of guilt because they are taking SSRIs is obviously absurd. So how do you decide who has been affected and who hasn't?

~7,765 homicides in the US per year are associated with excessive alcohol consumption. Should all of those people be found not-guilty because they were mentally impaired at the time? Arguably alcohol can have a much larger acute effect on rational thought than SSRIs - so if you are going to let people avoid guilt because they take SSRIs, why not the same with alcohol? (I'm not advocating for this, just using an analogy).

Ultimately, in order to render a sufficiently informed verdict on whether or not Clancy was ‘sane’ or not at the time that she killed her children requires understanding the big differences between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, the differences in timeline during which they occur postpartum, and the rarity of postpartum psychosis vs the much more common postpartum depression. Conflating postpartum depression to postpartum psychosis, and using that as a defense for homicide is a slippery slope, and arguably this is not a diagnostic decision that should be made by jurors who are not experts in mental health issues (for the record, being a nurse does not make one an expert in mental health issues).

Whether or not there is testimony that Clancy was a ‘good mother’ is also irrelevant. Clearly sequentially strangling your young children to death is not the act of a ‘good mother’, obviously. So the only valid question is whether she knew what she was doing when she did it and if she understood that it was wrong.

Further, there are plenty of narcissists out there who are very skilled at presenting a different picture to the world than what reality is, so character witnesses are of limited value - particularly in a case like this.