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

[Anonymous]

What an effing tragedy. God help that woman when she realizes what she’s done.

Leave it to DCUM to cast blame, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having PPA/PPD and intrusive thoughts was the scariest, most mind-bending experience of my life. It is unfortunately not hard to imagine someone with a more severe form being moved to uncontrollable extremes. I feel nothing but horrible sadness for all involved.

So then why did he leave the kids with her? She was on leave from work and in 5 days/week outpatient care. Did that not feel that serious to him?

NP. I’m not going to judge this guy. Maybe he thought she was doing better. Maybe she claimed she wasn’t having any thoughts of harming herself or others. Maybe the kids were already in bed for the night and he didn’t think she’d interact with them. Maybe he’d been watching all of them like a hawk for months and just needed 20 minutes to himself. Maybe his wife asked for takeout and he was trying to make things as smooth for her as possible. I don’t know why he left them, but he’s a victim in this too. His children are all dead and his wife will be incarcerated/institutionalized. He may be contemplating suicide himself at this point.

Of course he is a victim but it just seems like a very odd choice. If my husband were on leave from work in full time outpatient care for mental illness, I would never in my wildest dreams leave him alone with our children.

An outpatient program would indicate that they felt she wasn't at immediate risk to harm herself or others. He was working from home fulll time to support her as much as possible. We have no idea of the specifcs of the case but it is very likely that there was no expectation of 24/7 observation and she may never even have threatened to hurt the kids. The vast, vast majority of people with mental illness never hurt others. Many many people are in outpatient treatment programs for mental illness and their spouses are not providing 24/7 care. If someone is assessed as needing 24/7 supervision, they would be inpatient. This man went out to pick up dinner and came home to find his 3 kids “unconscious, with obvious signs of severe trauma,” at the hands of his wife. He is a victim. Your victim blaming and making him responsible for her actions is pretty vile.

Its an anonymous message board and its a fair question why he thought this was a good decision. That doesn't make him responsible. I'm allowed to wonder - you aren't the thought police.

I didn't say you couldn't wonder nor did I try to police your thoughts - I just said that your victim blaming and thoughts were vile. It is an ignorant question but yes you can ask it online and I can judge you for it online.

Are you trying to insult me? That's fine - I'm far from the only one wondering about this, including him.

Give the man a break. You expect him to care for his wife 24-7 (can’t even take 20 minutes to get takeout), care for the three young children, hold down a full time job to support the family, all on his own. Why aren’t you asking, where were her parents? Her siblings? Where were her friends?

Society fails all of these people. When we fully fund wars and special interests but people cannot get fast and affordable mental (and physical) health care at the moments they need it most. Shame on all of us for not DEMANDING this in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People understand quite a bit more now about PPD nowadays.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having PPA/PPD and intrusive thoughts was the scariest, most mind-bending experience of my life. It is unfortunately not hard to imagine someone with a more severe form being moved to uncontrollable extremes. I feel nothing but horrible sadness for all involved.

So then why did he leave the kids with her? She was on leave from work and in 5 days/week outpatient care. Did that not feel that serious to him?

He went to pick up takeout. He presumably had no idea anything would happen while he stepped out.

Has he not heard of food DELIVERY?

Presumably he was going to sleep that evening, and might also use the bathroom or shower. If his wife needed 24 hour supervision she should have been inpatient. If she's home the expectation would be that she was not a threat to others and therefore safe to leave alone with the children for a short period of time. And even if he had ordered delivery if she was intent on doing harm to herself and/or her children she would have found an opportunity - all it takes is a few moments.

Yeah. Super easy. Piece.Of.Cake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an effing tragedy. God help that woman when she realizes what she’s done.

Leave it to DCUM to cast blame, though.

I went to graduate school with a woman who killed her infant because of postpartum psychosis. She was in jail and administered medication sufficient to enable her to understand what she had done, at which point she committed suicide. It was so unbelievably tragic. She was not a “monster” by any definition—she was very, very sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People understand quite a bit more now about PPD nowadays.

+1 this

This, for sure.

And also ... People see themselves in Clancy in a way they didn't relate to Yates. The religion thing, the controlling husband, the number of kids, their lifestyle overall .... It was easy to "other-ise" Yates. "I'm not like her, so I can blame her because I'll never be in her shoes" (which nobody ever said or loud, but was there). Classic blame the victim response. People look at Clancy (or at least the image of her life that she projected) and see someone aspirational. Someone they not only can be like, but someone they would normally WANT to be like. That makes them look for other reasons for the actions, to absolve her of blame ... Because deep down, we all know that we could be Clancy in a way that we would never see ourselves as Yates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had pregnancy psychosis and during both of her pregnancies she had to be hospitalized because she was a danger to herself. After giving birth she's fine. It's so peculiar but hormones are insane. This woman seemed like a good mother. I don't know how she's going to live with herself once she's out of this psychosis.

You're assuming it was psychosis, but that has not been established yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are more educated AND ALSO, yes I think Clancy is more sympathetic. This is terrible but Clancy is cute, young, athletic, a nurse. She looks like a typical pinterest mom trying to achieve the American dream. Yates was in a strange religion, lived in a bus, had 6 kids not 3 which some people may find odd, and the pictures of her that circulated showed a scarily out of it woman. I felt horrible for her, but I can see how her "image" didn't garner as much sympathy. And I thought the dad in the Yates case was hideously negligent as a spouse and as a parent. Not enough info yet on the Clancy's to know if the husband was out to lunch or not.
/

I don't disagree, but Yates was also educated as a nurse and working as a RN when she met Rusty Yates. She may have been "normal' before taking up with him. I want to say that she didn't show signs of mental illness until having several children. Also, I think they were living in a house by the time the killings occurred. She was "with it" enough to tell her spouse that she didn't want to have any more children, but unfortunately, he won out, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Yates had been inpatient and tested for psychosis previously, I believe. We don't seem to have those facts here, or, at least, they have not come out yet. It would seem to be be a more uphill battle for Clancy to establish a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense -- it's a pretty high bar and requires more than a diagnosis of mental illness. In Yates' case, there was testimony from psychiatrists and others observing her. She was directed not to be alone with the children by her psychiatrist. I don't know that we have those facts here. What a horrible situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yates had been inpatient and tested for psychosis previously, I believe. We don't seem to have those facts here, or, at least, they have not come out yet. It would seem to be be a more uphill battle for Clancy to establish a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense -- it's a pretty high bar and requires more than a diagnosis of mental illness. In Yates' case, there was testimony from psychiatrists and others observing her. She was directed not to be alone with the children by her psychiatrist. I don't know that we have those facts here. What a horrible situation.

treated* not tested

[Anonymous]

I know someone who killed a family member due to mental illness. He had had a mental illness for awhile and had been in treatment but unbeknownst to his family he had stopped taking his medication. He had never been violent or aggressive, even at his sickest. They spent a weekend all together and everyone thought he was doing great. He seemed to be well. Then he just suddenly picked up a knife and killed the family member he was talking to at that point with one stab. The family member was the person he was closest to and who supported him the most, and who he got on the best with. He put the knife down and just walked out of the house. When family went to see him in jail he had no idea why he was there. He told them that he had been told he killed B but that made no sense to him as he loved B and would never hurt her and there was no way he killed her. She was his best friend. When family told him it was true he went into shock and didn't really speak or move for weeks. They had to transfer him to a hospital.

His lawyers tried to use the insanity defense but failed and was he was sentenced to life in prison. It definitely isn't an easy defense to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People understand quite a bit more now about PPD nowadays.

+1 this

This, for sure.

And also ... People see themselves in Clancy in a way they didn't relate to Yates. The religion thing, the controlling husband, the number of kids, their lifestyle overall .... It was easy to "other-ise" Yates. "I'm not like her, so I can blame her because I'll never be in her shoes" (which nobody ever said or loud, but was there). Classic blame the victim response. People look at Clancy (or at least the image of her life that she projected) and see someone aspirational. Someone they not only can be like, but someone they would normally WANT to be like. That makes them look for other reasons for the actions, to absolve her of blame ... Because deep down, we all know that we could be Clancy in a way that we would never see ourselves as Yates.

No I don’t think all of us feel that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People understand quite a bit more now about PPD nowadays.

+1 this

This, for sure.

And also ... People see themselves in Clancy in a way they didn't relate to Yates. The religion thing, the controlling husband, the number of kids, their lifestyle overall .... It was easy to "other-ise" Yates. "I'm not like her, so I can blame her because I'll never be in her shoes" (which nobody ever said or loud, but was there). Classic blame the victim response. People look at Clancy (or at least the image of her life that she projected) and see someone aspirational. Someone they not only can be like, but someone they would normally WANT to be like. That makes them look for other reasons for the actions, to absolve her of blame ... Because deep down, we all know that we could be Clancy in a way that we would never see ourselves as Yates.

No I don’t think all of us feel that way.

It’s a lot easier to see yourself in Clancy than it is Yates. That’s all PP was saying. Of course every single person learning about the case isn’t going to feel exactly the same. Did you know water is wet and the sky is blue, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having PPA/PPD and intrusive thoughts was the scariest, most mind-bending experience of my life. It is unfortunately not hard to imagine someone with a more severe form being moved to uncontrollable extremes. I feel nothing but horrible sadness for all involved.

So then why did he leave the kids with her? She was on leave from work and in 5 days/week outpatient care. Did that not feel that serious to him?

He went to pick up takeout. He presumably had no idea anything would happen while he stepped out.

Has he not heard of food DELIVERY?

Presumably he was going to sleep that evening, and might also use the bathroom or shower. If his wife needed 24 hour supervision she should have been inpatient. If she's home the expectation would be that she was not a threat to others and therefore safe to leave alone with the children for a short period of time. And even if he had ordered delivery if she was intent on doing harm to herself and/or her children she would have found an opportunity - all it takes is a few moments.

X1000 it could’ve happened at any time he wasn’t right with them. The kids were strangled. She could’ve done it at night while he slept in his bed. He could’ve easily need another fatality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People understand quite a bit more now about PPD nowadays.

+1 this

This, for sure.

And also ... People see themselves in Clancy in a way they didn't relate to Yates. The religion thing, the controlling husband, the number of kids, their lifestyle overall .... It was easy to "other-ise" Yates. "I'm not like her, so I can blame her because I'll never be in her shoes" (which nobody ever said or loud, but was there). Classic blame the victim response. People look at Clancy (or at least the image of her life that she projected) and see someone aspirational. Someone they not only can be like, but someone they would normally WANT to be like. That makes them look for other reasons for the actions, to absolve her of blame ... Because deep down, we all know that we could be Clancy in a way that we would never see ourselves as Yates.

No I don’t think all of us feel that way.

It’s a lot easier to see yourself in Clancy than it is Yates. That’s all PP was saying. Of course every single person learning about the case isn’t going to feel exactly the same. Did you know water is wet and the sky is blue, too?

Pp said “deep down, we all know that we could be Clancy”

No. WE all don’t.