Why are people more sympathetic to Lindsay Clancy than Andrea Yates? (Child death mentioned)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the Boston Globe…

She will be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon via Zoom. Her lawyer did not say she was paralyzed but that “she’s not walking out of the hospital”. They are recommending she be released to either her parents with GPS tracker or to Spaulding (which is a chi-chi rehab facility) rather than a women’s prison. She also hasn’t been able to see her husband or parents and is under 24/7 police guard. Initial thought is that the defense will be involuntary intoxication due to the drug mix, rather than postpartum psychosis.

Well I doubt she had PPP. She still needs to be held accountable regardless, and as an RN I would have thought she’d be more aware of potential med interactions/contraindications, MDs aren’t always correct, she was fairly young and inexperienced though and probably all of her friends are taking some sort of psych med. Everyone seems to be nowadays. Also many school shooters were found to be on SSRIs just remember that.

You ... you know what a "confounding factor" is and what the most logical explanation for this correlation is, right?

Please enlighten me

Do you think school shooters were prescribed antidepressants randomly, for no reason at all? Really?

I think there is an epidemic of overmedicated children out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Involuntary intoxication will never fly as a defense. Prosecution will put the husband on the stand and ask if she was acting strange or intoxicated or out of it when he left her alone with THREE young children including an infant. I think we all know what his answer has to be.

You misunderstand the legal definitions here. Involuntary intoxication doesn’t mean high or impaired like by alcohol or other similar substances. It means that she was subject to the effects of the drugs prescribed which in some cases can be suicidality and homicidal thoughts. Those effects would not necessarily be obvious to her husband as the effects of alcoholic or other high-inducing drugs would be. But it is still intoxicating in the way that those drugs can be.

This might be confusing for you and apologies if I’m not helping to clarify but I assure you it is a concept that all the criminal lawyers and judges will grasp and for which there is a sound legal basis in statute and case law.

As an attempt at further elucidation - if you were force fed copious amounts of alcohol or other intoxicating drug against your will, and that intoxication led you to attack someone or commit another crime, you would have a defense in the law because your intoxication was involuntary. You didn’t plan or seek to get drunk or high. Likewise because she was fed all these drugs by physicians she trusted, she didn’t take them of her own initiative but in reliance on medical advice and expertise. That they caused her to experience suicidal and homicidal thoughts is a side effect of the drugs which she didn’t seek and thus she has this defense under the law. That isn’t to say it’s an automatic pass but a jury could certainly be convinced by it if they hear from experts etc. as to the validity of her claims. The defense only needs to convince one skeptical juror to hang the jury, convince a few and you might get yourself an acquittal. So this defense gives the defendant leverage in moving forward to possibly negotiate her case. The critical factor will be the mental health assessments of the state and defense - if the state’s expert believes she lacked mens rea she may be able to be committed to mental health facility indefinitely in lieu of facing trial and potentially prison. It will be a fascinating case to watch but of course for the Clancys it is all just hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the Boston Globe…

She will be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon via Zoom. Her lawyer did not say she was paralyzed but that “she’s not walking out of the hospital”. They are recommending she be released to either her parents with GPS tracker or to Spaulding (which is a chi-chi rehab facility) rather than a women’s prison. She also hasn’t been able to see her husband or parents and is under 24/7 police guard. Initial thought is that the defense will be involuntary intoxication due to the drug mix, rather than postpartum psychosis.

Well I doubt she had PPP. She still needs to be held accountable regardless, and as an RN I would have thought she’d be more aware of potential med interactions/contraindications, MDs aren’t always correct, she was fairly young and inexperienced though and probably all of her friends are taking some sort of psych med. Everyone seems to be nowadays. Also many school shooters were found to be on SSRIs just remember that.

You ... you know what a "confounding factor" is and what the most logical explanation for this correlation is, right?

Please enlighten me

Do you think school shooters were prescribed antidepressants randomly, for no reason at all? Really?

I think there is an epidemic of overmedicated children out there.

I think you are dodging the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Involuntary intoxication will never fly as a defense. Prosecution will put the husband on the stand and ask if she was acting strange or intoxicated or out of it when he left her alone with THREE young children including an infant. I think we all know what his answer has to be.

You misunderstand the legal definitions here. Involuntary intoxication doesn’t mean high or impaired like by alcohol or other similar substances. It means that she was subject to the effects of the drugs prescribed which in some cases can be suicidality and homicidal thoughts. Those effects would not necessarily be obvious to her husband as the effects of alcoholic or other high-inducing drugs would be. But it is still intoxicating in the way that those drugs can be.

This might be confusing for you and apologies if I’m not helping to clarify but I assure you it is a concept that all the criminal lawyers and judges will grasp and for which there is a sound legal basis in statute and case law.

As an attempt at further elucidation - if you were force fed copious amounts of alcohol or other intoxicating drug against your will, and that intoxication led you to attack someone or commit another crime, you would have a defense in the law because your intoxication was involuntary. You didn’t plan or seek to get drunk or high. Likewise because she was fed all these drugs by physicians she trusted, she didn’t take them of her own initiative but in reliance on medical advice and expertise. That they caused her to experience suicidal and homicidal thoughts is a side effect of the drugs which she didn’t seek and thus she has this defense under the law. That isn’t to say it’s an automatic pass but a jury could certainly be convinced by it if they hear from experts etc. as to the validity of her claims. The defense only needs to convince one skeptical juror to hang the jury, convince a few and you might get yourself an acquittal. So this defense gives the defendant leverage in moving forward to possibly negotiate her case. The critical factor will be the mental health assessments of the state and defense - if the state’s expert believes she lacked mens rea she may be able to be committed to mental health facility indefinitely in lieu of facing trial and potentially prison. It will be a fascinating case to watch but of course for the Clancys it is all just hell.

That's a straightforward way to dent women's agency. Do you do that much?

[Anonymous]

^^to deny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Involuntary intoxication will never fly as a defense. Prosecution will put the husband on the stand and ask if she was acting strange or intoxicated or out of it when he left her alone with THREE young children including an infant. I think we all know what his answer has to be.

You misunderstand the legal definitions here. Involuntary intoxication doesn’t mean high or impaired like by alcohol or other similar substances. It means that she was subject to the effects of the drugs prescribed which in some cases can be suicidality and homicidal thoughts. Those effects would not necessarily be obvious to her husband as the effects of alcoholic or other high-inducing drugs would be. But it is still intoxicating in the way that those drugs can be.

This might be confusing for you and apologies if I’m not helping to clarify but I assure you it is a concept that all the criminal lawyers and judges will grasp and for which there is a sound legal basis in statute and case law.

You sound suspiciously similar to the PP prosecutor claiming this was a textbook case of postpartum psychosis and that we just didn’t understand that and the legal system. Please point us to the statutes and case law - she willingly took these drugs with knowledge and involvement of her husband. The side effects and warnings are all over them. This isn’t the case of someone who was slipped something unknowingly. Finding her not guilty in these circumstances would create an insanely slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would a non-cute, non-white, non-Instagrammable mom in the same situation be released to her parents? No effing way.

Placing any quad or para into a long term or even short term facility is not always easy. She may not be able to be placed in a prison at this time depending on her medical needs/complexity. This would apply to anyone, homeless drug addicted paraplegics are released back onto the streets. Is it fair? No but it is what it is.

We don't know that she's paralyzed. The lawyer only said that "she can't walk." She might just have 2 broken ankles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the Boston Globe…

She will be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon via Zoom. Her lawyer did not say she was paralyzed but that “she’s not walking out of the hospital”. They are recommending she be released to either her parents with GPS tracker or to Spaulding (which is a chi-chi rehab facility) rather than a women’s prison. She also hasn’t been able to see her husband or parents and is under 24/7 police guard. Initial thought is that the defense will be involuntary intoxication due to the drug mix, rather than postpartum psychosis.

And who should pay for that? Her (now) millionaire husband? Or the tax payers of Massachusetts?

As a resident of Mass, I wonder that too. Does insurance cover an incarcerated person if they are in a private facility? Spaulding is part of the Mass General - Brigham network of facilities, so super expensive.

Would a private facility take someone accused of murdering 3 people? I tend to think they are not equipped to handle that. Obviously she should not be released to her parents with an ankle monitors. WTF

No, she will probably end up home with home care, or she may end up staying in hospital until they are ever able to place her somewhere. That money will all go the hospital.

A murderer is not going home.

She may if no facilities are able to accept her and care for her properly. They can use the GFM money for 24/7 nursing care.

Nope. Not until she is stood trial and found not guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Involuntary intoxication will never fly as a defense. Prosecution will put the husband on the stand and ask if she was acting strange or intoxicated or out of it when he left her alone with THREE young children including an infant. I think we all know what his answer has to be.

You misunderstand the legal definitions here. Involuntary intoxication doesn’t mean high or impaired like by alcohol or other similar substances. It means that she was subject to the effects of the drugs prescribed which in some cases can be suicidality and homicidal thoughts. Those effects would not necessarily be obvious to her husband as the effects of alcoholic or other high-inducing drugs would be. But it is still intoxicating in the way that those drugs can be.

This might be confusing for you and apologies if I’m not helping to clarify but I assure you it is a concept that all the criminal lawyers and judges will grasp and for which there is a sound legal basis in statute and case law.

You sound suspiciously similar to the PP prosecutor claiming this was a textbook case of postpartum psychosis and that we just didn’t understand that and the legal system. Please point us to the statutes and case law - she willingly took these drugs with knowledge and involvement of her husband. The side effects and warnings are all over them. This isn’t the case of someone who was slipped something unknowingly. Finding her not guilty in these circumstances would create an insanely slippery slope.

The one that ran away when she couldn’t cite medical studies to back up the crap she was spewing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her attorney has stated she was prescribed up to 12 psych meds since October 2022. If true, she was likely having major side effects from the mixtures of these meds. There is absolutely no need to prescribe this many psych meds to an otherwise mentally healthy young woman, this is just disgraceful although this is what I suspected. She was grossly overmedicated to the point of possibly causing psychosis. These physicians just hand out SSRIs and anxiolytics like candy, it should only be a psychiatrist doing this not pcp and obgyns. We don’t all need to take SSRIs, there’s something really wrong with our society if we all need emotional blunting.

Why would you assume she was not under the care of a psychiatrist?

I am curious as to who initially prescribed psych meds for her, bet it wasn’t a psych.

If your statement about 12 meds is correct, I have a hard time imagining any OB or PCP prescribing that many, or going through that many combinations, without referring to a psychiatrist.

Yes she was under a psych’s care later on, but I am talking initially. When did she first begin psych meds ever? And who prescribed them and why? I am betting it was either a pcp or obgyn, and I have a major issue with this. How long was she taking psych meds before she ever even saw a psych? Months? Years? Who initially diagnosed her with a mental illness to warrant taking these meds?

Sounds like you have no idea how hard it is to get into a psychiatrist. The wait times are unbelievable. It is often a gift that a PCP or OBGYN issues a prescription.

And it’s doubtful that it was 12 at once. There were probably different cocktails of medication that involved some small number of medications.

Yes, I am well aware how difficult it is. Anyone other than a psych should not be handing these meds out, especially to people without a psych diagnosis.

DP. Well, then we'll have a lot more dead people. I hope you can live with promoting that. (They won't.)

About 1 in every 5 to 6 people will be clinically depressed in their lifetimes. Of the ones who seek help from a physician for it, about 15% will commit suicide within one month if treatment is not started.

You, PP, are going to be responsible for a lot of dead people if you keep this up. Take responsibility for it.

Your numbers are tragic. But the solution is not more anti-depressant medication. If we didn't have guns all over the place, people wouldn't kill themselves so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her attorney has stated she was prescribed up to 12 psych meds since October 2022. If true, she was likely having major side effects from the mixtures of these meds. There is absolutely no need to prescribe this many psych meds to an otherwise mentally healthy young woman, this is just disgraceful although this is what I suspected. She was grossly overmedicated to the point of possibly causing psychosis. These physicians just hand out SSRIs and anxiolytics like candy, it should only be a psychiatrist doing this not pcp and obgyns. We don’t all need to take SSRIs, there’s something really wrong with our society if we all need emotional blunting.

Why would you assume she was not under the care of a psychiatrist?

I am curious as to who initially prescribed psych meds for her, bet it wasn’t a psych.

If your statement about 12 meds is correct, I have a hard time imagining any OB or PCP prescribing that many, or going through that many combinations, without referring to a psychiatrist.

Yes she was under a psych’s care later on, but I am talking initially. When did she first begin psych meds ever? And who prescribed them and why? I am betting it was either a pcp or obgyn, and I have a major issue with this. How long was she taking psych meds before she ever even saw a psych? Months? Years? Who initially diagnosed her with a mental illness to warrant taking these meds?

Sounds like you have no idea how hard it is to get into a psychiatrist. The wait times are unbelievable. It is often a gift that a PCP or OBGYN issues a prescription.

And it’s doubtful that it was 12 at once. There were probably different cocktails of medication that involved some small number of medications.

Yes, I am well aware how difficult it is. Anyone other than a psych should not be handing these meds out, especially to people without a psych diagnosis.

DP. Well, then we'll have a lot more dead people. I hope you can live with promoting that. (They won't.)

About 1 in every 5 to 6 people will be clinically depressed in their lifetimes. Of the ones who seek help from a physician for it, about 15% will commit suicide within one month if treatment is not started.

You, PP, are going to be responsible for a lot of dead people if you keep this up. Take responsibility for it.

Your numbers are tragic. But the solution is not more anti-depressant medication. If we didn't have guns all over the place, people wouldn't kill themselves so often.

So OB-Gyns and primary care physicians should not offer life-saving medication when people come in asking for it, because we don't care that 15% of themselves will kill themselves within the next month, after we see them.

But they don't matter, right? People's real lives don't matter as much as your lagenda. Got it. Loud and clear. It's more important to you to be right than for people to survive.

Shame.

[Anonymous]

^^as your agenda

[Anonymous]

I don't have sympathy for either of them. You kill a child you deserve to be in jail for life. Mental illness is not an excuse or a reason, and I say this as someone diagnosed with bipolar I and OCD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^as your agenda

Why do soooo many people, so so many, men, women, children, need these medications. Are we all really this broken that we must rely on SSRIs and such in order to prevent us from all committing suicide? How pathetic is this? We must look at the bigger picture here as to why so many are dependent on these meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^as your agenda

Why do soooo many people, so so many, men, women, children, need these medications. Are we all really this broken that we must rely on SSRIs and such in order to prevent us from all committing suicide? How pathetic is this? We must look at the bigger picture here as to why so many are dependent on these meds.

Sure. And while you sort that out, let's critique doctors for saving lives, because -- apparently -- you don't care if they die while you protest the fact that they have access to medications to keep them alive.

How about you limit yourself to advocating for mental health specialist access without ALSO criticizing doctors for saving their patients' lives?