Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

There are instances where a parent has gone psychotic and harmed their kids without realizing that they're doing something wrong. So, I know that that exists. And "not guilty by reason of insanity" fits in those cases.

But I just don't believe that about Lindsay Clancy, as I don't see strong enough evidence to support it.

And don't go throwing around the ideas of "witch-burning" and "writing off women's mental health" towards others just because they don't buy her claims.

Some people on here are getting into gender war bs, and that's stupid. But that doesn't mean that Lindsay Clancy didn't knowingly murder her children in cold blood.

Bear in mind, I am a woman... and a mother. 

And I suspect that the main reason there are so many people supporting Lindsay Clancy is because she's a wealthy white woman that people might tend to project innocence onto... and women who have struggled with postpartum depression might tend to project their situation onto her situation.

So, I suspect it's that combination of things that might cause people to lose sight of what I believe are her true motives. 

What was her motive?

[Emerald]

Just now, Elliott said:

What was her motive?

What's any cold blooded murder's motive? They all have one... even if they're not insane. It's going to vary from person to person.

But I speculate that her intent was to kill her children to get rid of them as a way of starting over.

It's speculated that she has OCPD... which is Obsessive Compulsive PERSONALITY Disorder. And Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is different than regular OCD. It basically has to do with a pre-occupation with maintaining a certain identity in an obsessive way.

I was talking to my friend who follows the trial, and it seemed like she has some anxious and perfectionist tendencies.... and an attachment to the image of the ideal mother identity. (Perhaps where the OCPD comes in)

So, it may have been that her children and her identity of motherhood didn't feel perfect enough for her... so she wanted to wipe the slate clean to get away from the children that she perceived as undermining her identity as the ideal mother.

Of course, that's speculation on my part, so take that idea with a grain of salt. 

But regardless whether I have the motive correct or not, there are DEFINITELY other potential motives beyond pure insanity.

There are plenty of mothers that kill their children who aren't experiencing psychosis or something that would make them not criminally liable for the murder.

[Raze]

12 minutes ago, Elliott said:

What was her motive?

There’s a difference between crazy and can’t control your actions crazy 

[Elliott]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

What's any cold blooded murder's motive? They all have one... even if they're not insane. It's going to vary from person to person.

But I speculate that her intent was to kill her children to get rid of them as a way of starting over.

It's speculated that she has OCPD... which is Obsessive Compulsive PERSONALITY Disorder. And Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder is different than regular OCD. It basically has to do with a pre-occupation with maintaining a certain identity in an obsessive way.

I was talking to my friend who follows the trial, and it seemed like she has some anxious and perfectionist tendencies.... and an attachment to the image of the ideal mother identity. (Perhaps where the OCPD comes in)

So, it may have been that her children and her identity of motherhood didn't feel perfect enough for her... so she wanted to wipe the slate clean to get away from the children that she perceived as undermining her identity as the ideal mother.

Of course, that's speculation on my part, so take that idea with a grain of salt. 

But regardless whether I have the motive correct or not, there are DEFINITELY other potential motives beyond pure insanity.

There are plenty of mothers that kill their children who aren't experiencing psychosis or something that would make them not criminally liable for the murder.

You know she's paralyzed from jumping out second story window right, you think she wanted to start over as a paraplegic, maybe try to make it in wheelchair basketball, that's her dream, start off with a slam dunk insanity defense then hit the courts. Your comments just scream of envy toward her.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

17 minutes ago, Raze said:

There’s a difference between crazy and can’t control your actions crazy 

Regardless, what's her 'crazy' motive then?

[Carl-Richard]

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Immoral is a silly judgment to make about it.

Ahhh, mmmwhell, it might be illegal 🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢

 

56 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Massachusetts only = Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove she's NOT insane.

All other states = Burden of proof is on the defense to prove she IS insane. 

I already did this 😏

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

It's not just Massachusetts it's

Colorado

Florida

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia 

 

It's called innocent until proven guilty, witch burners

 

"Drown her and if she dies she's not a witch"

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

 

 

[Emerald]

27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ahhh, mmmwhell, it might be illegal 🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢

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.

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's not just Massachusetts it's

Colorado

Florida

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia 

 

It's called innocent until proven guilty, witch burners

 

"Drown her and if she dies she's not a witch"

 

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.

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Because you're doing as much due diligence as you did for your campaign to kill Lindsay Clancy

 

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

 

It's not just Massachusetts it's

 

Colorado

 

Florida

 

Massachusetts

 

Michigan

 

Mississippi

 

New Jersey

 

New Mexico

 

North Dakota

 

Oklahoma

 

Tennessee

 

Texas

 

West Virginia 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Emerald]

58 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Regardless, what's her 'crazy' motive then?

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. 

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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. 

Jesus christ lady, I'm not asking for some 100% made up in your head narrative, connect it with reality in SOME WAY AT ALL, like "well her friend said she's a bitch", " she didn't like kids", "she said she wanted divorce".

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

I'm sorry that sarcasm does not translate well through text.

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Because you're doing as much due diligence as you did for your campaign to kill Lindsay Clancy

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

It's not just Massachusetts it's

Colorado

Florida

Massachusetts

Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia 

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.

[Emerald]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm sorry that sarcasm does not translate well through text.

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

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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

Np. Playing a murky and dangerous game, prepare to get hurt 🌝

[Emerald]

22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Jesus christ lady, I'm not asking for some 100% made up in your head narrative, connect it with reality in SOME WAY AT ALL, like "well her friend said she's a bitch", " she didn't like kids", "she said she wanted divorce".

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.

[Elliott]

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Ya, only the guy with the match is responsible for the witch burnings. You're an adult, take responsibility for your actions, the innocent by reason of immaturity defense doesn't work

 

 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Ya, only the guy with the match is responsible for the witch burnings. You're an adult, take responsibility for your actions, the innocent by reason of immaturity defense doesn't work

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.