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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is no evidence she experienced any of that. In fact neither she nor her husband nor any of her doctors had ever heard or used the word psyschosis until the shink hired by her lawyer after the murders used it. Prosecution has access to all of her medical records and have interviewed the husband extensively.

Having not been identified as psychotic in the past is an element, but it’s not the whole story. A person with severe PPD could experience a psychotic break as another step on that continuum of illness. In fact, it is far likelier—as a purely statistical matter—than encountering the stone cold psychopath that some here seem to be arguing that she is.

+1 no one in this thread seems to understand mental illness

No, we just understand that people can be mentally ill and still guilty of murder. If mental illness was a get out of jail free card, the jails would be almost empty.

I never said she wasn’t guilty! I’m only saying that people saying oh this was all calculated and plotted and clearly just evil and not mental illness are not making any sense to me.

What do you think about Casey Anthony and Christopher Watts? Were they mentally ill or evil? Both? I think this lady may have been mentally ill but is definitely evil.

All of the evidence I have seen suggests that they both have personality disorders. But personality disorders do not disconnect people from reality and from the capacity to know right from wrong in the way that psychosis does, so to me these comparisons are like apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There is no evidence she experienced any of that. In fact neither she nor her husband nor any of her doctors had ever heard or used the word psyschosis until the shink hired by her lawyer after the murders used it. Prosecution has access to all of her medical records and have interviewed the husband extensively.

Having not been identified as psychotic in the past is an element, but it’s not the whole story. A person with severe PPD could experience a psychotic break as another step on that continuum of illness. In fact, it is far likelier—as a purely statistical matter—than encountering the stone cold psychopath that some here seem to be arguing that she is.

+1 no one in this thread seems to understand mental illness

No, we just understand that people can be mentally ill and still guilty of murder. If mental illness was a get out of jail free card, the jails would be almost empty.

I never said she wasn’t guilty! I’m only saying that people saying oh this was all calculated and plotted and clearly just evil and not mental illness are not making any sense to me.

What do you think about Casey Anthony and Christopher Watts? Were they mentally ill or evil? Both? I think this lady may have been mentally ill but is definitely evil.

Evil is a theological claim. It has nothing to do with mental illness one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP here. Yes. But some families more than others. As in schizophrenia, extreme anxiety and depression , etc. It's not a crime to recognize that some families have more family members with more extreme forms of mental illness than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it.

Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory.

The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.

Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.

It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.

Well in this case the burden is on the defense to prove psychosis. The prosecution merely has to prove that she killed the kids. That doesn't seem too hard at this point. It will be on the defense to prove she was suffering from psychosis. Not on the state to prove that she wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Other than depression an anxiety, she didn't have any of these. Are we now claiming that all persons with depression and anxiety are psychotic?

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis#:~:text=Symptoms%20of%20psychosis%20include%20delusions,is%20inappropriate%20for%20the%20situation.

What are the signs and symptoms of psychosis?
Typically, a person will show changes in his or her behavior before psychosis develops. Behavioral warning signs for psychosis include:

Sudden drop in grades or job performance
New trouble thinking clearly or concentrating
Suspiciousness, paranoid ideas, or uneasiness with others
Withdrawing socially, spending a lot more time alone than usual
Unusual, overly intense new ideas, strange feelings, or no feelings at all
Decline in self-care or personal hygiene
Difficulty telling reality from fantasy
Confused speech or trouble communicating
Symptoms of psychosis include delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear). Other symptoms include incoherent or nonsense speech and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. A person in a psychotic episode also may experience depression, anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulty functioning overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clancy has my sympathy. She is a Labor & Delivery RN now midwife in 5 days a week outpatient treatment for postpartum depression—she was trying mightily to help herself as was her husband. Sounds like crossover to postpartum psychosis—she will be heartbroken at what she did under SEVERE mental illness. My sympathies to her children deceased, her infant, her husband and yes to her. A nightmare.

I have sympathy and she tried to off herself as well. I think Yates killed her kids and didn’t do anything to herself. But..I believe this post partum psychosis is real. She is going to have to live with this forever. The sad thing is I think a lot of this is tied to lack of sleep and so many people judge if a new mom wants help. I remember I got a lot of judgement for having a night nanny. Luckily I have a great husband who basically told me to put myself first and I did. Without sleep and without an opportunity to exercise or meet with a friend then a severe depression and can develop. It seems like her husband tried and maybe things went sideways with all the meds. Seraqual is a really powerful drug and cannot believe she was on that with others. Maybe the best thing in retrospect would have been inpatient treatment. Anyway new parents should really prioritize sleep and well being. The best thing you can do for a new mom is offer to watch the baby’s so they can nap or offer to take their other kids (if they have them) out so less chaos in the house.

And maybe don’t have three kids in less than five years. Even though posters will jump on here to claim that their mom had 8 kids and didn’t kill any of them! Still, 3 kids under five in this day and age is bananas. And she wasn’t even old or facing a biological clock. What is the rush? The third clearly out her over the edge because she was seemingly ok with the first two.

So, forced abortions like in China?

You are intentionally being obtuse to PP's point, which I admit wasn't artfully made. But no, PP likely wasn't advocating for forced abortions. For a woman like Clancy--who is among the luckiest of us by having access to more knowledge, money, family/friends, and institutional support than the majority of new mothers--I think it isn't unfair to wonder why she would have so many children so closely given the difficulties she had adjusting to motherhood.

She had the kids because she wanted to them show off and brag about her easy pregnancies and brag about how fertile she is, this is an actual thing. It’s sick. She didn’t think it through, like this is a lifelong commitment, it’s quite messy and not at all glamorous. The babies were all for show, many people are doing this now, having prop babies and pets.

Or maybe she's.... Catholic

Isn’t that kind of old school? Like a woman becoming a nun? Who the hell becomes a nun anymore or a priest for that matter. Get w the times, Catholics use birth control now.

No, practicing Catholics do not. But I'm not that sure they were fully practicing. I've read news stories where their parish priest mentions that he didn't know the Clancys, which tells me they probably didn't go to mass regularly or participate in church ministries/activities.

This is simply not true. American Catholics routinely use birth control and are equally represented in the population of women who get abortions, too. American PRACTICING Catholics. This is a well documented researched phenomenon so I recommend you do some research before asserting inaccuracies.

I recommend YOU do some basic research before asserting inaccuracies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it.

Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory.

The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.

Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.

It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.

Well in this case the burden is on the defense to prove psychosis. The prosecution merely has to prove that she killed the kids. That doesn't seem too hard at this point. It will be on the defense to prove she was suffering from psychosis. Not on the state to prove that she wasn't.

This is America. The burden is on the prosecution, where it always belongs. In this case, they have to show that she killed the kids in an act that was a murder (or however they decide to charge it), vs in an act that was a manslaughter or an act that was negligence or an act that was an accident or an act that occurred in a time during which she lacked the capacity to understand the nature of her actions. And the nature of her crime itself, because it correctly shocks the conscience, can also be interpreted as strongly suggesting that she was off her rocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it.

Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory.

The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.

Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.

It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.

Well in this case the burden is on the defense to prove psychosis. The prosecution merely has to prove that she killed the kids. That doesn't seem too hard at this point. It will be on the defense to prove she was suffering from psychosis. Not on the state to prove that she wasn't.

This is America. The burden is on the prosecution, where it always belongs. In this case, they have to show that she killed the kids in an act that was a murder (or however they decide to charge it), vs in an act that was a manslaughter or an act that was negligence or an act that was an accident or an act that occurred in a time during which she lacked the capacity to understand the nature of her actions. And the nature of her crime itself, because it correctly shocks the conscience, can also be interpreted as strongly suggesting that she was off her rocker.

If she is deemed fit to stand trial, the burden is on the defense to claim insanity. Not the prosecution to claim she wasn't insane. The state just has to prove the elements of the crime, which are all there, including evidence of premeditation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it.

Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory.

The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.

Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.

It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.

Well in this case the burden is on the defense to prove psychosis. The prosecution merely has to prove that she killed the kids. That doesn't seem too hard at this point. It will be on the defense to prove she was suffering from psychosis. Not on the state to prove that she wasn't.

This is America. The burden is on the prosecution, where it always belongs. In this case, they have to show that she killed the kids in an act that was a murder (or however they decide to charge it), vs in an act that was a manslaughter or an act that was negligence or an act that was an accident or an act that occurred in a time during which she lacked the capacity to understand the nature of her actions. And the nature of her crime itself, because it correctly shocks the conscience, can also be interpreted as strongly suggesting that she was off her rocker.

This isn't how it works, at all. We don't claim all criminals who commit shocking crimes must have been insane because their crime was so shocking. How moronic.

[Anonymous]

Once an insanity defense is given, the burden shifts to the defendent to prove it.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-638-burden-proving-insanity-18-usc-17b#:~:text=%C2%A7%2017(b)-,Under%2018%20U.S.C.,by%20clear%20and%20convincing%20evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than depression an anxiety, she didn't have any of these. Are we now claiming that all persons with depression and anxiety are psychotic?

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/understanding-psychosis#:~:text=Symptoms%20of%20psychosis%20include%20delusions,is%20inappropriate%20for%20the%20situation.

What are the signs and symptoms of psychosis?
Typically, a person will show changes in his or her behavior before psychosis develops. Behavioral warning signs for psychosis include:

Sudden drop in grades or job performance
New trouble thinking clearly or concentrating
Suspiciousness, paranoid ideas, or uneasiness with others
Withdrawing socially, spending a lot more time alone than usual
Unusual, overly intense new ideas, strange feelings, or no feelings at all
Decline in self-care or personal hygiene
Difficulty telling reality from fantasy
Confused speech or trouble communicating
Symptoms of psychosis include delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear). Other symptoms include incoherent or nonsense speech and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. A person in a psychotic episode also may experience depression, anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulty functioning overall.

That is an absurd attempt at a gotcha question, like all of them here so far.

You're posting two things here: the first, a list of "behavioral warning signs" (which are typically, but not always, present in psychosis). It includes eight phenomena that also commonly occur in people with depression or anxiety diagnoses and with PPD/PPA. If she was diagnosed with depression or anxiety or PPD/PPA and put on this cocktail of meds, it strongly suggests that at least some of those eight phenomena were present. In fact, the more extreme "warning signs" having been present here under the umbrella of a depression or anxiety diagnosis would explain a lot about why the prescribing physician was cycling so rapidly through different medication options, because things like difficulty telling reality from fantasy would be almost or actually psychotic depression, which is a life-threatening medical emergency.

The other thing you're posting is a list of the symptoms of psychosis. They do not all have to be present for the person to be psychotic under the DSM definition. She may have become psychotic for the first time on the day of this event, or she may have been psychotic and hiding it (which is also extremely common).

[Anonymous]

Sounds like members of Lindsay’s Army of love are here and passionately defending a child murderer. Babies and children can be slaughtered but the opportunity to defend a homely, white, professionally unaccomplished, pill popping and attention seeking failure must never be squandered. The projection is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she knew her kids were dead, why wasn’t her next question, “what happened to them”? Why was the next question “do I need a lawyer?” She knew exactly what she did and she was well aware of what she was doing, when she was doing it.

Psychosis also doesn’t necessarily impair memory.

The denial in this thread about this symptom is really astounding.

Sounds to me like psychosis is pretty damn impossible to prove.

It can also be very hard to disprove. And that is much more true when someone alleging it has recently been on three different antipsychotic medications, among many others.

+1 the threshold is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Given her medical and mental health history leading up to this day, that’s going to be a rough standard to unanimously agree to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like members of Lindsay’s Army of love are here and passionately defending a child murderer. Babies and children can be slaughtered but the opportunity to defend a homely, white, professionally unaccomplished, pill popping and attention seeking failure must never be squandered. The projection is real.

Let me be the first to

[Anonymous]

There's also people suggesting the death penalty. Many people are trying to process the story