Emerald

That's the way that I'm thinking about it as well. If she planned it out in advance to build evidence to use in her NGRI case, that seems to fit better with the evidence, in my opinion.

My understanding is that people who have command hallucinations tend to engage in a lot of coping strategies to drown out the voice... like listening to music or praying. From what seems to be the case in Lindsay Clancy's story is that she just heard the voice and didn't do the usual coping strategies that people with command hallucinations do. This leads me to believe that she didn't actually experience a command hallucination.

I'm not asking you about it. And I'm not asking if there are such cases in reality. I'm asking Elliot specifically if he believes that mothers who kill their children only ever have a motive of insanity.

My point was to ask you... Do YOU believe that women who kill their children always do so because of reasons that can be dismissed as legal insanity? I wasn't asking about what has happened in the past. I'm asking what you believe to get a sense of why you're so certain in this case.

I'm not encouraging vigilantism by having an opinion about a public court case. You're being very silly about this. Also, you didn't answer my questions that I asked before... Do you recognize that a mother who kills their children COULD have other motives beyond insanity? Do you default to "innocent" in the case of every single court case you've encountered?

Yes, I'm aware of what medications that she was prescribed. I'm also aware that her toxicology report, where she had taken 5 or 6 of the many medications she was prescribed. And there are conflicting expert testimonies surrounding the question of, "Did the drugs in her system cause psychosis?" I personally don't think that a person who is under such a strong influence from all those drugs to invoke psychosis would have the wear-with-all to calculate the dynamic with her husband. My read of it was that she created a plan and acted upon it. And then, the drugs and medical institution becomes an easy scapegoat to pin the blame on. But only Lindsay Clancy knows her motive for sure. I have my own speculations, of course. But drug-induced or non-drug-induced psychosis is NOT the only motive that could exist. Do you believe that her only potential motives involve psychosis? Or do you see the possibility that something else could be motivating her? My concern is that a lot of people seem to be defaulting to the psychosis explanation because they don't believe a mother is capable of killing her children in cold blood without being in a state where she's unable to tell right from wrong. It's kind of similar to why no one expected that Lizzie Borden murdered her family way back in the day... as she was assumed too delicate a flower to have done something so heinous. But a mother who kills her children could have a variety of motives... Get the children out of the way because she doesn't like them The kids are annoying her or disrupting her lifestyle Wanting to take the kids with her when she kills herself so that they can be together with her after death Wanting a clean slate Just enjoys killing like a serial killer Mad at the children for embarrassing her Fears that she won't be able to find a romantic partner if she has kids Those aren't specific to Lindsay Clancy. But they are all motives for mothers killing their kids that would not be written off in courts as legal insanity, such that it dismisses them from criminal responsibility.

If I had believed that was the explanation for her behavior, I'd be open to her sharing responsibility with the medical professionals. I just don't think it was her meds... as she seemed very cogent in her planning of the whole event. But I agree... justice not punishment. And for justice to be done, I think she needs to be held criminally responsible for her actions.

First off, I already said... I don't believe in the death penalty. Secondly, I just genuinely believe that she's guilty. And as a member of the public, I get to have an opinion... and that opinion doesn't have an impact on what happens in the courtroom. And if theoretically, a juror ran across this post and got influenced by me... that's on the juror for not following courtroom protocols. Also, you clearly have issues with misogyny. And if you keep it up, you might get a demerit for being so overtly sexist.

Agreed. That's the main reason I don't believe her claim of insanity. It all seems very planned out.

You never actually respond to the points that I make. You just say vaguely sexist things... like "You're just jealous of her" and "Diva". And you were complaining about "pick me girls" on the thread... and I'm the only woman commenting on this thread. My understanding is that she brought the kids to basement to strangle them with exercise bands whilst she sent her husband away to get food. And then, she jumped out the window. Is that incorrect?

That's a misunderstanding of what women generally find most interesting about sex. Don't get me wrong... most women want equal orgasms. But that's not the driving factor for the connection or the main thing that motivates sexual desire. My concern is that you over-index on the physical elements of sex and under-index on the emotional elements of sex, because you believe that women are motivated towards sex and connection in the same exact ways that a man is. And that physicality-focus and orgasm-focus (to the exclusion of emotion-focus) can make sex something enjoyable for the man... but less fulfilling for the woman.

If my parent killed me and my siblings... or even just attempted to kill me and my siblings... I would want justice to be done. I wouldn't want my parent (or anyone else) to get away with such an extreme injustice. Think about it. What Lindsay Clancy did stole those children's entire lives from them. And the last killed had to watch their mother kill their other two siblings. So, don't imagine that her children would want her to escape justice for what she did to them. They lost everything because of her.

You mainly need the one that has to do with emotions and intimacy... as that's where all the most positive feelings come from. The other is just a nice-to-have.

@Joshe The Andrea Yates situation is a perfect example of a situation where a mother killed her children in a state of psychosis and shouldn't be considered criminally responsible for the deaths. She doesn't even want to be released. And that says a lot about her level of remorse for what she did while in psychosis. With Lindsay Clancy, the claim is that she never experienced the symptoms of psychosis and auditory hallucinations prior to or after the exact 20-minute window of time when she committed the murders. And she sent the husband away for that exact window of time. And she doesn't seem remorseful in the way that I'd expect a mother who killed her children while in psychosis would be.

That's very random to assume that I'm envious of her. Is it just because I'm a woman who thinks she's guilty? If so, that's incredibly sexist, and you should be mindful of your biases and assumptions about women, and how they're peppering your perception of this case. I'm aware of the details of the case. And to me, it reads like she's guilty and killed her children knowingly from a clear state of mind. Why do you believe that she's innocent?

Too much emotion... and too many ad hominem attacks. You're comparing the people in the thread who don't believe that Lindsay Clancy was in psychosis when she murdered her kids to Hitler... when that's a totally reasonable conclusion to come to. I could flip it around and claim that you're evil and that support all child killers. But I'm not doing that. Realistically, I just perceive you as a bit naive and too emotionally invested in seeing Lindsay Clancy as innocent. And I think you could be caught up in mob mentality about it, as it's a very polarizing public court case where people are turning it into a "man vs woman" thing. But I was never vitriolic towards Lindsay Clancy. I just honestly think she's guilty. To me, that just seems like the "duh" option. And I haven't seen any evidence that's compelling enough to me to change my mind.

Thank you! I've noticed that it's common for these kinds of concerns to come up, as the social narratives can add shame and pressure to men to "be the ladies man" or "You need to have more experience." So, men are shamed for "lacking experience". And even when a man has had a couple relationships or romantic experiences, there can still be pressure to ramp up the numbers. Then, there's the dynamic where women are often being pursued... and tend to more easily end up having experiences and relationships as a result. And women are shamed for having experience. So, that can create tension and conflict in relationships where the partners feel ashamed in either direction. But what I'd say is that... from my perspective when I was younger and dating, I never cared much about a man's level of experience or number of partners/relationships. My focus was always towards vibes, personality qualities, and deal breakers. And if a guy had a much higher number of sexual partners or relationships, I would tend to see that as a sign of incompatibility and potentially un-seriousness about the connection... like he wouldn't actually care that much about intimacy with me, because it's become about numbers rather than a mutual sharing of an intimate experience. So, most of my partners over the years have had just a handful of relationships and sexual partners. And that has tended to read as more of a green flag, if I feel that's coming from him being more sexually reserved, more selective, more serious about longterm partnership, and tending less towards sexual boundary-stepping with women which can be somewhat common with men who don't have any scruples about making first moves.

Yes, pick-up definitely works for getting laid more. But the qualities that get a man laid more in the short-term can tend to be a turn-off for longer term partners and women who are more discerning and who are a better fit. I'm going to use a bunch of sales metaphors to describe the situation... Pick-up is kind of like a spammy numbers-game of doing a massive amount of cold approaches towards a very broad and unspecific ideal client avatar and a very flexible value proposition (offering whatever value proposition you can think of to win over the women you're interacting with at the moment). And it gets observable results... like numbers, dates, and sex. And it's like the same sales tactics that beginning business owners use to try to get leads before they've built a well-known brand identity.... and before they've gotten clear on their value proposition or Ideal Client Avatar. And a man who gets the results that way might come to believe in a general sense... "Yay! I succeeded at making myself more attractive to women." But that man really just added more women to the top of his "sexual sales funnel" by approaching more women. And it doesn't actually mean that the product he's selling (himself) got better or more attractive in the eyes of the mass market of women. It's just that a certain percentage of women would have been receptive to him the whole entire time.... either because they're attracted to him specifically or they're just a bit boy-crazy or seeking male validation or have poor boundaries. And now, he's actually approaching them during the numbers game. And in this case, he's just conflating top-of-the-funnel improvements and middle/bottom-of-the funnel improvements. So, he wasn't tracking the right metrics to understand his success. In fact, he may have had to degrade the product (himself) a bit to get a more general audience of women into the top of the funnel... especially if he doesn't have a very specific ICA that fits the value that he authentically has to offer. If I liken it to mass marketing and niche marketing... where there's the mass market drink like Coca-Cola but then there are niche market drinks like a specific but obscure brand of passion-fruit juice. Every guy in pick-up is trying to be off-brand Coca Cola as that's what's optimized in the number game... instead of developing himself as he is and owning his essence as an obscure passion-fruit drink that's strongly appreciated in niche markets but not paid attention to in the mass market. So, he may attract numbers of women who are willing to drink off-brand Coca Cola if he's a decent enough imitation of actual Coca Cola. (Actual Coca Cola in this sense are crowd-pleasing but bland guys who most women would consider reasonably attractive) But these off-brand Coke drinkers probably aren't very passionate about the off-brand Coke. Instead, he would be a lot more interesting, impressive, and attractive if he stopped trying to be off-brand Coca Cola and just leaned into his natural niche... and leaned into being the obscure passion-fruit juice. It just won't invite as many women into the top of the funnel. Most women won't be interested in that kind of drink. But the conversion rate will be much higher in the middle and bottom of the funnel. And the buyers will be much more aligned with him and into him for him. And the issue with niche market guys trying to market themselves as mass market guys, is that they probably will get sexual success pretending to be a mass market guy. And he's dull himself out (and make himself less attractive) because it gets him laid more.

Power and responsibility must match in order to avoid corruption. And my power and responsibility are perfectly matching here. If the laws of the court are followed, I have no power and therefore no responsibility over the Lindsay Clancy court case outcome that would mandate that I default to assuming that she's innocent... when the reality is that I believe that she's guilty. And if my posts on this forum did somehow sway the jury on the matter... that's the responsibility of the jury for not following the protocols of the court to only make their judgments in relation to the official evidence presented in the court room. It's actually very normal and reasonable for lay-people in the public square to have their own opinions on any given court case. And I'm sure that you don't default to innocent in every single court case that you come across. If you did, that would be rare and unnecessary. Think of the other high profile court cases that you're familiar with. Did you default to assuming each and every one of them was innocent because that's the requirement of the court? My guess is no.

I did tell you what my speculation is, given the circumstances. And I specified that it is just a speculation and to take it with a grain of salt. My main point in sharing my speculation was not to claim that that's true, as I do not know. No one but Lindsay Clancy actually knows. My point is to say that psychosis/insanity isn't the only potential motive that exists for a mother killing their children. And it's not unreasonable to suspect her of regular old cold blooded murder, where the killer is not legally insane. Why do you assume she was experiencing psychosis during the murders... rather than consciously and deliberately killing her children for some other motive? Honestly, there are many motives that could be. Is it because she's a mother and you don't believe that a mother is capable of killing their children in cold blood without being in psychosis... or unaware of right and wrong? Is it because you believe that women aren't capable of consciously and deliberately doing terrible things for selfish motives? To me, it seems like there's a tendency with this case to see women as fundamentally incapable of deliberately evil actions. Equal rights means equal wrongs too. And it's important not to put women on a pedestal where they can do no wrong of their own volition.

I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. I thought you were serious. Sorry about that.

I just looked into it further, and you're right about the different states. I had looked it up, and got incorrect information. But to be clear, I don't believe in the death penalty as I think it's a marker of the under-developed society. And secondly, I'm also not in a position where I have the power to bang the gavel on her... as I'm not on the jury nor are the jury allowed to look at evidence beyond that which they're presented. And I would be approaching the trial with a more neutral lens if I were actually on the jury. So, let's calm down on the hyperboles about witch burning and me killing Lindsay Clancy by me believing that she's guilty. Keep in mind... this is a woman who killed her small children in a very physical way, one after the other. And it was clear that she told her husband to run an errand to get him out of the house to do the deed. And given those circumstances, many people are going to believe that she's criminally responsible for that. And you're going to have to accept (and even be glad) that not everyone in the public square assumes her to be innocent. It would honestly be sad if everyone agreed on that she wasn't responsible, as that means that the populace has lost sight of the real tragedy... the deaths of the children. Also, the public square doesn't operate from the notion of innocent until proven guilty. We lack judicial power. So, we don't have the responsibility to avoid having opinions on the matter. The fact is that you assume her innocent. But you may assume another defendant guilty. And I might assume her guilty. But I may assume another defendant innocent. So, it would be quite uncommon for a member of the lay-people populace will truly stay neutral and avoid forming an opinion on a given court case. And that's expected, as people are not bound to the policies that the members of the court are bound to. Also, I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the children were the true victims of the situation. And as a mother myself... if hypothetically, I had legitimately gone into psychosis and killed or even harmed my children, I'd want to be locked away and never let out. And I'd feel a ton of remorse. And I just don't see that reaction from her. That's why I believe that she's guilty and knew what she was doing at the time of the murder. So, I just don't believe that she was in a mental state where she was unaware of right from wrong.

Of course, no one knows her motive other than her. I gave you my speculation earlier... and the jumping out the window thing could be to make her case that she was insane. Or perhaps, she was trying to end it all and take her kids with her. So, I personally don't believe that she committed those murders in a state where she didn't have control over her own actions and didn't have the sanity to know what she was doing was wrong. That doesn't seem to fit. And there are plenty of cold blooded killers out there (including mothers that kill their children in cold blood) that have a variety of different motives. And we could say that they probably all have a screw or two loose... and are crazy in the way that a cold blooded killer has to be crazy. But that doesn't mean that those killers are legally insane to the point where they're not criminally responsible for their actions. Otherwise, murders would never be able to be prosecuted. Or all mothers who killed their children would automatically have their motives set to 'They were insane and didn't know better. Therefore, they're not legally responsible." And that's quite infantilizing to believe that women aren't capable of doing horrible things in cold blood and for selfish and calculated reasons. So, insanity and psychosis isn't the only motive that would cause a mom to kill her kids. There are tons of other motives that could be.

I just looked it up to double check. And it is ONLY Massachusetts where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant sane and responsible for their actions. In all other states, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove the defendant is insane and not criminally responsible for their actions. So, Massachusetts is an outlier in this regard.

Are you claiming that I'm doing something illegal by explaining a policy in Massachusetts state law in a way that's correct, but confusing to you? (And on a random Internet forum, no less) You act like my correct but slightly wordy explanation of this random Massachusetts courtroom policy is an ethical and legal breach. And that's just silly.