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

[Joshe]

Andrea Yates, Texas, 2001/2006 — the direct Clancy precedent.
Yates drowned her five children in the bathtub, called 911 and her husband herself, and told police she'd killed them to save them from Satan — believing she was so corrupted that her children were doomed unless they died while still innocent. Documented history: two suicide attempts, multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, postpartum psychosis diagnosis, and a psychiatrist who'd warned against having more children. First jury convicted her in under four hours (Texas puts the insanity burden on the defendant, and its M'Naghten test asks only whether she knew the act was "wrong" — she'd said she knew it was against the law). Conviction overturned on appeal over false expert testimony; the 2006 retrial jury found her NGRI. Same woman, same facts, same state — opposite verdicts. It's the cleanest real-world demonstration that the verdict measures the legal machinery and the jury, not the defendant's mind. If you want one case to sit next to Clancy, it's this one.

People v. Decina, New York, 1956 — culpability transfers backward to the last voluntary act.
Decina had a known seizure disorder. He chose to drive anyway, had a seizure behind the wheel, his car jumped the curb and killed four children. His defense was pure intruder logic: the seizure was involuntary, there was no conscious act, so there's no crime — you can't punish a man for what his body did while his mind was absent. The court said: wrong timestamp. The criminal act wasn't the seizure — it was getting into the car, fully lucid, knowing what his condition could do. Convicted of criminally negligent homicide. The principle: trace back from the harm to the last moment of control and knowledge, and responsibility attaches there — it's the rule that kills "but I was unconscious" whenever a lucid earlier self knowingly deployed a dangerous later self (driving with untreated epilepsy, drinking into a blackout, another Ambien after prior episodes). One caveat: the transfer is negligence-grade, not murder-grade — the lucid self took a reckless risk, it didn't intend a death.

Kenneth Parks, Canada, 1987 — the clean automatism acquittal.
Parks got up in the night, drove 14 miles to his in-laws' house, beat and stabbed his mother-in-law to death, seriously injured his father-in-law, then drove to a police station and said "I think I have killed some people" — all, the defense argued, while sleepwalking. He had no motive (he was close with his in-laws, who called him "the gentle giant"), a heavy family history of parasomnias, and EEG findings consistent with the claim. Acquitted outright, and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld it in R v. Parks (1992). This is the case that proves courts will accept the intruder logic when the circumstantial silhouette is clean: no motive, no history of violence, documented sleep disorder, and behavior too bizarre to be a plan. It's the mirror image of Decina — no voluntary act anywhere upstream.

Brian Thomas, Wales, 2009 — same defense, different flavor.
Thomas, a man with a 50-year documented history of night terrors, strangled his wife of 40 years in their camper van while dreaming he was fighting off an intruder — they'd moved the van that evening to escape some rowdy kids, and the threat apparently followed him into sleep. He called 999 himself, hysterical. The prosecution withdrew mid-trial after its own psychiatric experts agreed he was in automatism; the judge told him he bore no responsibility. Useful because it shows even a prosecution conceding the defense when the evidence profile is right — and because the "victim is whoever happened to be nearby" logic is horrifyingly literal.

Herbert Weinstein, New York, 1991 — the brain scan in the courtroom.
Weinstein, a 65-year-old ad executive with no history of violence, strangled his wife during an argument and threw her body from their 12th-floor window to stage a suicide. A PET scan revealed an orange-sized arachnoid cyst compressing his frontal lobe. Note what the staging behavior does to the intruder theory: he was organized enough to construct a cover-up, which cuts against "no capacity" — yet the lesion was undeniably real and sitting in the decision-making hardware. Prosecutors, reportedly worried a jury would acquit once they saw the scan, offered a manslaughter plea. This is the "what if it were a verifiable brain event" hypothetical escaped into reality — and it landed exactly on the hard question: was the lesion the cause, or an accelerant on an existing fire? Nobody could decompose the causal shares between the cyst and the marriage, so the system split the difference with a plea. Whitman gets cited as the thought experiment; Weinstein is what actually happens when the scan shows up in court.

R v. Quick, England, 1973 — the diabetic nurse and the insulin blackout.
Quick, a diabetic nurse, assaulted a patient while hypoglycemic — too much insulin, not enough food. The court's ruling drew a distinction that directly answers the "why does the source of the malfunction matter?" question: a malfunction caused by an external factor (the insulin injection) is automatism, a full defense — while a malfunction arising from internal disease would be insanity, which leads to commitment rather than acquittal. Same defendant, same blackout, completely different legal fate depending on whether the cause came from outside or inside the body. The kicker: this means the law's answer to "why is exogenous more forgivable?" is partly just administrative — external causes are treated as one-off accidents unlikely to recur, internal ones as standing dangers requiring containment. Recurrence risk, not moral desert, drives the line.

Edited Wednesday at 10:35 PM by Joshe

[Elliott]

24 minutes ago, Joshe said:

 

.

Kenneth Parks, Canada, 1987 — the clean automatism acquittal.
Parks got up in the night, drove 14 miles to his in-laws' house, beat and stabbed his mother-in-law to death, seriously injured his father-in-law, then drove to a police station and said "I think I have killed some people" — all, the defense argued, while sleepwalking. He had no motive (he was close with his in-laws, who called him "the gentle giant"), a heavy family history of parasomnias, and EEG findings consistent with the claim. Acquitted outright, and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld it in R v. Parks (1992). This is the case that proves courts will accept the intruder logic when the circumstantial silhouette is clean: no motive, no history of violence, documented sleep disorder, and behavior too bizarre to be a plan. It's the mirror image of Decina — no voluntary act anywhere upstream.

 

Now, look at what happens if we wrongfully scapegoat clancy as a cold blooded psychopath, we miss the lack in mental healthcare and mental health awareness, effectively teeing this up to happen again, and again, and again, instead of addressing a correctable issue. It's textbook witch trial unless you think she hasn't proven she was temporarily insane, in which case; what's her motive? Rage? What? Pink pilled? Is it just basic mental illness, she seeked help for that repeatedly.

 

The witch hunters are just thinking in black and white, as tired as that platitude is on this forum.... No, not everyone that claims insanity is insane.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:21 PM by Elliott

[Emerald]

@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.

[Joshe]

24 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Now, look at what happens if we wrongfully scapegoat clancy as a cold blooded psychopath, we de-emphasize the lack in mental healthcare and mental health awareness, effectively teeing this up to happen again, and again, and again, instead of addressing a correctable issue. It's textbook witch trial unless you think she hasn't proven she was temporarily insane.

Listen, I'm with you and feel deep empathy for Clancy. Even if she committed the crime outside of psychosis, I still feel deeply sorry for her because she's in an absolute living hell, no matter the circumstances. But I'm considering more than her. 

You have to consider more of the downstream effects of acquitting her. For example, it teaches every future baby-killer that a string of doctor visits buys a NGRI verdict. (not-guilty by reason of insanity)

Also, we can't just rely on an argument about her interior. Even if everything she says is true, the fact of her crime remains. If we start going by who is more believable, you can see how that leads to problems. I'm not saying she's guilty or innocent, I'm just saying there are major consequences for acquittal that should be taken into account.

Edited Wednesday at 10:25 PM by Joshe

[Emerald]

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Think of how stupid your comment is. Imagine your mom did this out of a psychotic break, you want her killed for it? Crackhead, you're sadistic. 

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.

[Elliott]

Just now, Joshe said:

Listen, I'm with you and feel deep empathy for Clancy. Even if she committed the crime outside of psychosis, I still feel deeply sorry for her because she's in an absolute living hell, no matter the circumstances. But I'm considering more than her. 

You have to consider the downstream effects of acquitting her. For example, it teaches every future baby-killer that a string of doctor visits buys a NGRI  verdict. (not-guilty by reason of insanity)

Also, we can't just rely on an argument about her interior. Even if everything she says is true, the fact of her crime remains. If we start going by who is more believable, you can see how that leads to problems. I'm not saying she's guilty or innocent, I'm just saying there are major consequences for acquittal that should be taken into account.

No one is suggesting a flippant acquittal, that's a strawman.

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

That wasn't the question, Dishonest Diva

Quote

And the last killed had to watch their mother kill their other two siblings.

No they didn't,  jesus you know ZERO DETAILS

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:28 PM by Elliott

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

That wasn't the question, Dishonest Diva

lol, wtf is wrong with you? I'm not sure if you're being playful or just get off on insulting people. 

[Thought Art]

@Elliott Man

[Joshe]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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.

Yeah, that's very damning. 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Elliott said:

That wasn't the question, Dishonest Diva

No they didn't,  jesus you know ZERO DETAILS

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?

[Emerald]

Just now, Joshe said:

Yeah, that's very damning. 

Agreed. That's the main reason I don't believe her claim of insanity. 

It all seems very planned out.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

 

Is that incorrect?

You're missing a detail, your claim that they were killed in front of each other is false. I'm not going to go line by line with all your false accusations for you. 

[Thought Art]

Justice is made by fully understanding the situation. It would be unjust to allow a woman to be fed for weeks medications causing extreme damage to herself brain and nervous system which resulted in hallucinations which caused her to want to kill herself and her kids. 
 

If my parents killed me id want to understand what happened. I’d want justice, not just arbitrary punishment. 
 

A precedent should be set to protect people in the future by making it illegal to over prescribe medications clearly causing harm. 
 

The medical history is very clear this was medication induced psychosis. 
 

You guys take for granted your sanity. 
 

I don’t think she in her right mind would have done this. Killing your three kids is obviously something no one gets away with. It’s social suicide. You guys act like she would do it, but give no motive. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:36 PM by Thought Art

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

She's a constant shitposter that gets a free pass because of her genitals, advocating for a woman to be killed on a fucking whim

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.

[Thought Art]

@Emerald Did you look into the medical history and notes regarding the medication and her brain toxicity?

If you think she did ot in a sober mind what was her motive?

Edited Wednesday at 10:40 PM by Thought Art

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, Emerald said:

First off, I already said... I don't believe in the death penalty. 

First off, I already said 1.)she'll probably kill herself or 2.) High profile cases like this tend to result in vigilante 'justice' inside and outside of prison

Quote

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.

You say the dumbest stuff. Misogyny is against women, I'm attacking stupidity, not gender.

'I'm a misogynist while I'm advocating for a woman that killed her kids' 'while also being a biased woke feminist... because I'm advocating for a woman that killed her kids'

Edited Wednesday at 10:43 PM by Elliott

[Willy Phallicus]

I feel for the pyscho child murderer too.

I feel like she should burn in hell and now would be a great time to start immediately executing people who do shit like this.

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

Justice is for by fully understanding the situation. It would be unjust to allow a woman to be fed for weeks medications causing extreme damage to herself brain and nervous system which resulted in hallucinations which caused her to want to kill herself and her kids. 
 

If my parents killed me id want to understand what happened. I’d want justice, not just arbitrary punishment. 
 

A precedent should be set to protect people in the future by making it illegal to over prescribe medications clearly causing harm. 

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.

[Thought Art]

@Emerald How does she seemed like she planned the whole event? Was she free of the medications at the time?
 

Because all the events leading up to it, lack of sleep, brain toxicity, having her doses increased despite telling the doctors she’s getting and gotten worse since the medications suggest she was a ticking time bomb to kill herself or others. 
 

You guys act like you know where the limits of psychosis is, what it should and shouldn’t look like and how long it will last and how coherent you should be. I think that is not correct. 
 

I remember waking up as a 12 year old kid after destroying 2 chairs and the TV. I had been screaming for 35 minutes at the top of my lungs. I had a fever and thought I was in hell. I didn’t choose to do those things.i have no memory of it in this case. 
 

I think it’s clear the doctors, many of them are in clear malpractice. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:45 PM by Thought Art