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: To those that are judging her horrible actions, we need to remember that she was out of her mind. This is not the act of a well or rational person. It's so sad and so tragic.

She killed 2 people seriously harmed another who ended up dying and herself in a relatively short period of time.

That's not a small act. Specifically the method she used to kill the kids. Toddlers are strong as heck they would have been fighting. Strangulation is a horrific way to go.

As a medical professional she would know this

She may have a mental illness but I'm not willing to mitigate what she did based on that alone

Yes, she moved quick. Husband was gone 30 minutes, that's less than 10 min to kill each child and jump out of the window. It was reported there was obvious signs of trauma, so it sounds like they fought. It didn't happen in the middle of the night while they were asleep with sleep medication. It must have been a violent struggle with the 2 oldest kids.

+1

This wasn’t a situation where she drove them off a cliff or something all at once. She strangled each child. She watched her child die at her hands and then still went to the next to do it again. She is an absolute monster. Why didn’t she throw the kids out the window? It just seems so thought out and brutal and horrible.

It is kind of nuts how long it would have taken with each separate child. Same with drowning or smothering. It was take a full minute or two for each one, while they fought.

+2 There is a shred of premeditation in the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

I hope they don’t win on this either. This lady is evil and should be locked up forever. All the sympathy for her and normalizing/excusing her behavior has opened up a door for the Christopher Watts’ and Casey Anthony’s of the world to commit heinous crimes and get off on insanity or medical malpractice defense. Psychiatrists will be targeted, even less people will go into the mental health field, and our mental health crisis will get even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look she is a murderer. This is not complicated

This. 25 pages and this is still the answer.

Yes, we can blame PPD/PPP all we want but in the end, she viciously murdered her three children. It’s the same as the the mentally unstable school shooter, or a mentally ill father who kills his family, who we demonize. Why is PPD/PPP held to a higher standard and empathized with any more than schizophrenia or any other mental illness, or having a long history of being bullied and ostracized?

Postpartum illnesses ARE different than schizophrenia BECAUSE of how they arise. These illnesses are a direct result of predisposition, hormonal imbalances, lifestyle changes, and the many other circumstances that go into someone's mental state. People experiencing postpartum depression and anxiety often have a history of anxiety and depression, but people experiencing postpartum psychosis do not have a history of psychosis. They are not schizophrenic and when the psychosis breaks, they are largely the same people they were before, albeit with the consequences of whatever happened during the psychosis to grapple with.

Postpartum mental health problems have a huge history of stigmatization, even more so than other mental health problems. You need look no further than this thread to see that in action. The prosecutor understands what they're talking about. The posters who have experienced this or have family members who have. But most of you posters have no idea what you're talking about.

As for what treatment she was engaged in, there are various levels of psychiatric care. Your regular outpatient therapy appointments once a week or every other week is the lowest level. It sounded to me like Lindsay Clancy was in an intensive outpatient program, which is essentially 3-4 hours of therapy 3-5 times a week. When I worked in an IOP, it was group therapy, individual therapy, family therapy, and medication management. This was for teenagers, but those are pretty standard components of any higher level of psychiatric care. People who are deemed clinically appropriate for an IOP have been determined to not be actively suicidal or homicidal, not actively psychotic, etc. They are essentially deemed safe enough to stay at home. I don't know the extent to which any of Lindsay's doctors felt that it was safe for her to care for children or be alone with them, but it definitely sounds like her problems were more severe than anyone realized.

I just have a huge issue with the large number of posters who either don't believe that postpartum psychosis is a real thing. It remains to be seen what actually happened here, but it is mindblowing to me that what seems to be such a clear case of postpartum psychosis to me, and the prosecutor, and the PPs who have experience with psychosis, is such a clear case of something else to so many of you.

Murder committed by a woman suffering from PPD/PPP should not punished any differently than murders committed by other mentally ill people. Lindsay was presumably under or misdiagnosed as were probably most school shooters and mass murderers. This is where I have a major issue, we immediately demonize other murderers regardless of their past or present issues/illnesses. Why should PPD/PPP be held to a higher standard? Why? I have a real problem with this. Please explain to me why someone like Nicholas Cruz, who had a terrible childhood and most likely suffered from some mental illness, along with most school shooters, or even Chris Watts, how do we know he wasn’t suffering from some sort of mental illness? Most murderers don’t get a pass, any sympathy, except for postpartum white women.

I think Chris Watts killed his family because he was a selfish jerk who wanted a new life with a sexy lady. So no, I don’t have compassion for him. If he had killed his child because, say, the child was terminal and dying a slow and painful death, and Chris wanted his child to be free from pain, I’d have much more compassion for him.

After learning about Cruz’ life, my disgust shifted from him to his birth mother. I absolutely believe he has FAS and his brain is not wired right. Unfortunately, the way it is wired led him to kill a bunch of innocent people. He’d probably do it again. So, compassion or not, he needs to rot in jail. He is a danger to society.

Putting aside what Clancy will face legally, it just seems to me with proper medication and oversight (no more births), she’s not a danger to our society. She (likely) has a specific psychosis brought on by pregnancy / childbirth.

Lindsay Clancy worked as an L&D RN, I don’t care how medicated she is, I don’t want her caring for me or my baby ever. Luckily she won’t ever work again because she will be institutionalized or imprisoned for life.

I think you still don't understand that postpartum psychosis is not permanent. Women experiencing postpartum psychosis don't STAY psychotic. When the psychosis breaks, it is entirely possible that Lindsay Clancy will be as mentally healthy as you are, PP, albeit with a hell of a trauma to process and try, somehow, to overcome.

Cool. Well, she can process it until she’s 80 behind some manner of locked door,

Cool. Well, hopefully there are smarter people in charge that won’t want to waste the public’s tax dollars for the next ~50 years at $60k per year she spends in prison. Great return on that investment, compared to say, addressing underlying foundational issues like healthcare access and quality.

NP. You’re right. Death penalty needs to be brought back and that’s what she should get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

I hope they don’t win on this either. This lady is evil and should be locked up forever. All the sympathy for her and normalizing/excusing her behavior has opened up a door for the Christopher Watts’ and Casey Anthony’s of the world to commit heinous crimes and get off on insanity or medical malpractice defense. Psychiatrists will be targeted, even less people will go into the mental health field, and our mental health crisis will get even worse.

I agree, but it can be both things. If this overmedicated/mentally ill defense flies, we would have to reevaluate many past murders committed by potentially mentally ill/medicated people. And alternatively I do blame physicians, these psych meds are prescribed way too quickly and easily imo. I have enough experience to recognize this, as much as everyone wants to believe these meds are life saving and a necessity for all people, they aren’t 100% of the time and most do have a host of side effects, especially when mixed and stopped and started abruptly. Again, not everyone will suffer from severe side effects like rage, suicidal/homicidal ideation etc. but doesn’t mean it never happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

The Ambien issue seems to happen with people falling asleep and then committing acts but not remembering them. Driving somewhere and then not remembering doing that, etc. There doesn’t seem to be an indication that this was the case here. Had she been asleep at 5:15 pm, the husband would not left the kids alone with her.

The lawyer’s statement that they told the doctors the week prior that the meds were negatively impacting her shows that they knew there was a problem with the meds but continued to take them. Also, waiting until the husband was gone to commit the acts shows (but does not conclusively establish) that she knew enough to know the acts are wrong and that he would try to stop her if he were home. That works against the insanity defense. With an involuntary intoxification defense, insanity still must be established.

I’m assuming they tested her to see what was in her system at the time of the acts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Answer the question? Why do so many people need antidepressants? Could they be misdiagnosed or over medicated, yes of course. Especially when we have pcps and obgyns prescribing them.

Because our world is physically safer than ever. This creates more potential for mental suffering. Plus, American society is broken.

I’m very hesitant to try SSRIs as I think the research demonstrates that they aren’t all that effective. But I would never make this kind of argument. Because it’s not that simple as meds=overuse.

So rather than try to learn how to cope and become mentally stronger we rely on SSRIs? That sounds logical. We should just start newborns on them immediately.

God, I hope you’re a troll. If not, you’re a disgrace.

You’re simply a product of our me me me generation, everyone is a victim, life sucks so bad, woe is me. I had babies and now I feel differently, I must be depressed then because my obgyn mentioned that I might be, help me please because I have never learned how to face hardship without melting down. I need someone to just understand my hard life because no one in history ever encountered anything as hard as my life .

You’ve torpedoed this thread, congratulations.[/quote]


Honestly, I think that was their goal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Because she showed no signs of being a danger to herself or the kids. Because she had been cleared to be alone. So many reasons, but it's clear that you just want to pin this on her husband and make him the bad guy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Because she showed no signs of being a danger to herself or the kids. Because she had been cleared to be alone. So many reasons, but it's clear that you just want to pin this on her husband and make him the bad guy

Maybe he should have read the warning labels on all the drugs she was being given, especially since that appears to be their defense. It’s a big can of worms they are opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Because she showed no signs of being a danger to herself or the kids. Because she had been cleared to be alone. So many reasons, but it's clear that you just want to pin this on her husband and make him the bad guy

Maybe he should have read the warning labels on all the drugs she was being given, especially since that appears to be their defense. It’s a big can of worms they are opening.

Perhaps physicians should more seriously consider the potential side effects and drug interactions prior to doling these meds out like candy. It’s not the patient, nor the family’s responsibility to recognize side effects and interactions. they trusted that the physicians would be aware of and monitoring this, but sadly even many physicians aren’t even aware of anything regarding mixing and stopping and starting drugs. I have seen and experienced this first hand and it’s infuriating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Why would anyone leave her alone? Why? Because more than half of Americans are on some concoction of these meds and, while zombiefied and emotionally blunted, they rarely kill their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Because she showed no signs of being a danger to herself or the kids. Because she had been cleared to be alone. So many reasons, but it's clear that you just want to pin this on her husband and make him the bad guy

Maybe he should have read the warning labels on all the drugs she was being given, especially since that appears to be their defense. It’s a big can of worms they are opening.

Perhaps physicians should more seriously consider the potential side effects and drug interactions prior to doling these meds out like candy. It’s not the patient, nor the family’s responsibility to recognize side effects and interactions. they trusted that the physicians would be aware of and monitoring this, but sadly even many physicians aren’t even aware of anything regarding mixing and stopping and starting drugs. I have seen and experienced this first hand and it’s infuriating.

We actually have no idea what they were/were not told by her physicians. They are not at liberty to defend themselves. The trial will be interesting, that much is certain.

[Anonymous]

" I feel compelled to give another donation in support of Lindsey, for attys’ fees. You are in my thoughts and prayers…From Illinois"-Mimi B.

(I thought Gofundme can't be used to pay legal defense fees for violent crimes?)



"Seeing the article today discussing her treatment compelled me to donate again. “By the grace of God go I” keeps running through my head in thinking of your story. With support, Jenna [redacted]" -Jenna B

[Anonymous]

^Sorry I posted the above (quotes from the comments of the GoFundme)
But accidentally cut out what I wanted to say.

I'm surprised that there are apparently people donating multiple times to this Gofundme. If anything, I feel like as time passes I feel less sympathy for Lindsay and her husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other defendants have tried an "Ambien defense," but I don't think they've been successful.

And I’m sure the psychiatrist explained the side effects which are also prominently displayed on prescriptions. I think they’re trying to set up a medical malpractice/wrongful death case and I hope they don’t prevail assuming the psychiatrist was following the standard of care. I think it’s common to try different medicines to find what works and that seems like what the doctor was doing here.

Which brings us back to why would anyone leave three small children with someone on these drugs?

Why would anyone leave her alone? Why? Because more than half of Americans are on some concoction of these meds and, while zombiefied and emotionally blunted, they rarely kill their kids.

No, more than half of Americans are not on this level of psych drug. They didn’t give her Prozac.