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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No doctor (other than the one her attorney found after the crimes were committed) ever diagnosed her with psychosis and her husband stated he never heard the word used regarding his wife. He stated was was having a good day. Her mother, who had visited on a few days prior, texted her that it was nice to see her "looking so good."

She may not have been diagnosed with psychosis but she’d been prescribed three different anti-depressants, a mood stabilizer, and an antipsychotic. Something was clearly amiss.

That doesn't make her insane by the legal definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She had a diary?

Yep and she kept detailed notes of her medicines, her activities, her thoughts and feelings, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the new fad of moms with an infant strapped to their chest and pushing a toddler or two in a stroller, walking multiple rowdy dogs. there are a few of these crazy lunatics in my neighborhood. Like, why girl? Why? Just why? Is there a FB group for this or something? Moms of multiple babies under three with multiple dogs? And all walking at the same time, like look at me, look at me, please look at me.

Project much? I did this when I had an infant and a 2.5 year old because the dogs had to get walked, and the kids aren’t gonna babysit themselves. Never been on social media and I wasn’t interested in whether people looked at me.

+1

WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that she was not mentally ill but instead is a stone cold Casey Anthony type have a huge mountain of circumstantial evidence to get over to get a jury there.

Can we recall a stone cold Casey Anthony type who—totally coincidentally and in no way related to her actions in the subsequent crimes—had also been in a 5-day IOP and on 15 different psychiatric meds since September but been entirely healed, cured, with no remaining trace of the level of thought derangement that leads to that level of those medications and somewhat frantic toggling among options to identify what worked, only 4 months before?

No, we cannot.

I can't even follow your run-on-sentence.

It’s long, but not a run-on. No one is as crazy she was in month 1 and fully sane, but with a new bent for extreme evildoing, in Month 4. That dog just don’t hunt.

She can have mental illness and still be capable of committing murder. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a very specific and high bar and it does not apply to anyone with a mental illness. When she came to in the hospital, she didn't ask what happened. She knew - and all she wanted to know was if she needed a lawyer. Doesn't sound like a mother who is shocked that her kids are dead and she is the one who did it.

That’s true and may well be the prosecution’s argument. It doesn’t make it the God’s honest truth of what happened. We don’t know, but there are some
significant signals that this woman was pretty severely ill and was regarded that way by those closest to her. Mom saying it’s “good to see her looking so good”—that is not a thing that is commonly said about someone who was previously in the pink of good health. Same with husband jumping to “what did you do?” She’s absolutely correct that she needs an attorney, and a good one.

As attractive as it may be to frame her asking that question as evidence of cold-bloodedness, the reality is that psychosis does not invalidate all of one’s intelligence or executive functions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She had a diary?

Yep and she kept detailed notes of her medicines, her activities, her thoughts and feelings, etc.

Links?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.necn.com/news/national-international/she-killed-the-kids-prosecutors-outline-chilling-timeline-in-duxbury-tragedy/2924108/

Here is the detailed timeline of the day of the murders. It is bone chilling.

The reason he asked her “what did you do” on finding her outside, and not “who did this?” or the equivalent is because he knew she was off. It’s not a question that supports the assessment that everything seemed normal on the day of.

Untrue. Did you read the timeline. Everything was normal. He said "what did you do" because she had clearly jumped out a window when she was supposed to be watching them. That doesn't mean anything was abnormal prior to his leaving..

How did he know she jumped out the window?

He went in the house first, found the broken window upstairs while trying to find everyone, saw her on the ground from there.

Particularly with the window broken, the natural assumption would be that she had been pushed. People jumping out of windows don’t normally jump through them.

Right. If I found my husband like that I would not say what did you do? This confirms everything wasn’t perfectly normal like folks are trying to say. Was she functioning? Clearly. Again, not necessarily indicative this wasn’t a serious postpartum issue to anyone trained in this.

He knew at that point the kids were missing. He had already been inside the house and seen no one. (They were killed in the basement.)

You wouldn't be suspicious if your husband jumped out a window and your kids were missing?

On finding an average spouse bloody and paralyzed outside a broken (not open—broken) window my assumption would
be that there had been homicidal violence, not a murder-suicide. She was not an average spouse because she had this very recent history of psychiatric illness. Enough to justify all of that medication, whatever they were calling it.

Nobody is calling this woman an average spouse. She can have PPD and still be guilty of murder.

Exactly. One doesn't contradict the other. Any chance she gets death penalty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She had a diary?

Yep and she kept detailed notes of her medicines, her activities, her thoughts and feelings, etc.

Links?

I watched the full video of her arraignment. It was all disclosed by the prosecutor. You can watch it on youtube or lots of local news stations were covering it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that she was not mentally ill but instead is a stone cold Casey Anthony type have a huge mountain of circumstantial evidence to get over to get a jury there.

Can we recall a stone cold Casey Anthony type who—totally coincidentally and in no way related to her actions in the subsequent crimes—had also been in a 5-day IOP and on 15 different psychiatric meds since September but been entirely healed, cured, with no remaining trace of the level of thought derangement that leads to that level of those medications and somewhat frantic toggling among options to identify what worked, only 4 months before?

No, we cannot.

I can't even follow your run-on-sentence.

It’s long, but not a run-on. No one is as crazy she was in month 1 and fully sane, but with a new bent for extreme evildoing, in Month 4. That dog just don’t hunt.

She can have mental illness and still be capable of committing murder. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a very specific and high bar and it does not apply to anyone with a mental illness. When she came to in the hospital, she didn't ask what happened. She knew - and all she wanted to know was if she needed a lawyer. Doesn't sound like a mother who is shocked that her kids are dead and she is the one who did it.

That’s true and may well be the prosecution’s argument. It doesn’t make it the God’s honest truth of what happened. We don’t know, but there are some
significant signals that this woman was pretty severely ill and was regarded that way by those closest to her. Mom saying it’s “good to see her looking so good”—that is not a thing that is commonly said about someone who was previously in the pink of good health. Same with husband jumping to “what did you do?” She’s absolutely correct that she needs an attorney, and a good one.

As attractive as it may be to frame her asking that question as evidence of cold-bloodedness, the reality is that psychosis does not invalidate all of one’s intelligence or executive functions.

That's pretty much the definition of psychosis.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if her family has a history of mental illness. Given their genetics, some people really shouldn't have children or at least limit the number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.necn.com/news/national-international/she-killed-the-kids-prosecutors-outline-chilling-timeline-in-duxbury-tragedy/2924108/

Here is the detailed timeline of the day of the murders. It is bone chilling.

The reason he asked her “what did you do” on finding her outside, and not “who did this?” or the equivalent is because he knew she was off. It’s not a question that supports the assessment that everything seemed normal on the day of.

Untrue. Did you read the timeline. Everything was normal. He said "what did you do" because she had clearly jumped out a window when she was supposed to be watching them. That doesn't mean anything was abnormal prior to his leaving..

How did he know she jumped out the window?

He went in the house first, found the broken window upstairs while trying to find everyone, saw her on the ground from there.

Particularly with the window broken, the natural assumption would be that she had been pushed. People jumping out of windows don’t normally jump through them.

Right. If I found my husband like that I would not say what did you do? This confirms everything wasn’t perfectly normal like folks are trying to say. Was she functioning? Clearly. Again, not necessarily indicative this wasn’t a serious postpartum issue to anyone trained in this.

He knew at that point the kids were missing. He had already been inside the house and seen no one. (They were killed in the basement.)

You wouldn't be suspicious if your husband jumped out a window and your kids were missing?

On finding an average spouse bloody and paralyzed outside a broken (not open—broken) window my assumption would
be that there had been homicidal violence, not a murder-suicide. She was not an average spouse because she had this very recent history of psychiatric illness. Enough to justify all of that medication, whatever they were calling it.

Nobody is calling this woman an average spouse. She can have PPD and still be guilty of murder.

Exactly. One doesn't contradict the other. Any chance she gets death penalty?

Apparently not in Mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if her family has a history of mental illness. Given their genetics, some people really shouldn't have children or at least limit the number.

Everyone's family has a history of mental illness. Including yours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if they’d had a firearm in the house and she had successfully killed herself, would all the hateful posters here believe she was seriously mentally ill?

She was in treatment for severe post partum depression. She was on over a dozen psych meds. I cannot fathom the comments here questioning her diagnosis. Do you think it was all an elaborate six month long ruse to set up a defense for intentionally murdering her children and destroying her life?


I believe the nasty posts here are just reflecting fear. You folks are terrified by the reality of mental illness. You are terrified by the truth that brains can break just like bones and sometimes the breaking results in horror. You’re worried you’ll end up in a Dateline episode when something horrifying happens to you. Hope your kids don’t join the millions of American children struggling with mental illness. But maybe then you’d develop compassion.

The majority of people with mental illness don’t murder their own kids. Stop trying to make this about mental illness. She’s an evil murdered. She’s not any more or less mentally ill than other murderers.

Nobody is “evil.“

Wrong. Plenty of people are evil [/quote]


x1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a paraplegic, paralyzed from the t-5 down.

My god, this story truly can't get any more tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that she was not mentally ill but instead is a stone cold Casey Anthony type have a huge mountain of circumstantial evidence to get over to get a jury there.

Can we recall a stone cold Casey Anthony type who—totally coincidentally and in no way related to her actions in the subsequent crimes—had also been in a 5-day IOP and on 15 different psychiatric meds since September but been entirely healed, cured, with no remaining trace of the level of thought derangement that leads to that level of those medications and somewhat frantic toggling among options to identify what worked, only 4 months before?

No, we cannot.

I can't even follow your run-on-sentence.

It’s long, but not a run-on. No one is as crazy she was in month 1 and fully sane, but with a new bent for extreme evildoing, in Month 4. That dog just don’t hunt.

She can have mental illness and still be capable of committing murder. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a very specific and high bar and it does not apply to anyone with a mental illness. When she came to in the hospital, she didn't ask what happened. She knew - and all she wanted to know was if she needed a lawyer. Doesn't sound like a mother who is shocked that her kids are dead and she is the one who did it.

That’s true and may well be the prosecution’s argument. It doesn’t make it the God’s honest truth of what happened. We don’t know, but there are some
significant signals that this woman was pretty severely ill and was regarded that way by those closest to her. Mom saying it’s “good to see her looking so good”—that is not a thing that is commonly said about someone who was previously in the pink of good health. Same with husband jumping to “what did you do?” She’s absolutely correct that she needs an attorney, and a good one.

As attractive as it may be to frame her asking that question as evidence of cold-bloodedness, the reality is that psychosis does not invalidate all of one’s intelligence or executive functions.

That's pretty much the definition of psychosis.

No, it really is not. Psychosis is a degree of disconnection from reality, but it doesn’t always show up in a person who is also looking stuporous and seeming incapable of self-care. The DSM definition is the presence of one out of four kinds of thought disturbance. Hallucinations and delusions are two of them. You can have either of these without things like speech, self-care, ability to plan a dinner order necessarily being affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those arguing that she was not mentally ill but instead is a stone cold Casey Anthony type have a huge mountain of circumstantial evidence to get over to get a jury there.

Can we recall a stone cold Casey Anthony type who—totally coincidentally and in no way related to her actions in the subsequent crimes—had also been in a 5-day IOP and on 15 different psychiatric meds since September but been entirely healed, cured, with no remaining trace of the level of thought derangement that leads to that level of those medications and somewhat frantic toggling among options to identify what worked, only 4 months before?

No, we cannot.

I can't even follow your run-on-sentence.

It’s long, but not a run-on. No one is as crazy she was in month 1 and fully sane, but with a new bent for extreme evildoing, in Month 4. That dog just don’t hunt.

She can have mental illness and still be capable of committing murder. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a very specific and high bar and it does not apply to anyone with a mental illness. When she came to in the hospital, she didn't ask what happened. She knew - and all she wanted to know was if she needed a lawyer. Doesn't sound like a mother who is shocked that her kids are dead and she is the one who did it.

We don’t actually know this. If you watch the actual arraignment they say it was ONE of the first things she asked, and specifically says at this point she already knew her children had been murdered it does not say whether they told her that. Easily could have been they told her that and then she asked. Not that she woke up already knowing and immediately asked. People are really construing what was said.

It is really bizarre to me that people are trying to argue this woman wasn’t ill and was plotting this evil murder of her children when we have evidence of an in-patient hospitalization (the bar is high for that, more women than you might think have suicidal ideation and some intrusive thoughts about harming their child, it is actually not immediate grounds for hospitalization). If you’re going to make arguments based on things like I’m assuming she google mapped because she was plotting this, you could also argue why was she going to such lengths to get pediatric miralax? That doesn’t match up. Her mother said it was good to see her looking good a few days before, which means she was NOT GOOD very recently.

The prosecution was making a needed case to keep her in custody, as I think everyone agrees is appropriate. Everyone is taking small amounts of information and somehow jumping to its more likely this woman who was being treated for postpartum depression with a recent hospitalization and per friends and family a loving mom was actually secretly purely evil, plotting to murder her children.

It is so so much more likely that she was having postpartum mental illness, was doing better, and something happened while he was gone that made her have a “break” if you will and she was flooded.