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

[Anonymous]

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.“

They most assuredly are.

[Anonymous]

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?

If only abstinence and birth control (double methods if needed) existed. Oh wait! Good news!

[Anonymous]

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.

Attention. And pathetically, most of it is for online attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good

Yeah, I’m fine with that, just as long as it doesn’t prevent her from spending multiple decades in prison (which it wouldn’t, if she were male and/or nonwhite).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He literally called her from CVS mid-murders and he said she sounded totally normal but that she was in the middle of something.

JFC. I wish MA had the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

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..

I did read the timeline. It says he found her on the ground and that she was bleeding (and presumably already paralyzed). He had not yet been far enough into the house to find the children.

If I came home to my house and found my husband laying in the snow on our lawn bleeding, I doubt I would immediately get to the conclusion that he had jumped out of a window to get there. But my husband is not currently suicidal. When he was suicidal, I would have gotten there faster, which is why I say the husband knew something was not right with her.

+1 while incredibly disturbing to all of us because we want to feel like this could never happen to someone we love and there must be a clear sign, nothing presented seems contradictory to this potentially being psychosis. Psychosis isn’t always visible or slurring of words like they seem to be describing (saying she wasn’t slurring her words with the pharmacist etc) it can be silent and very scary in someone’s head. I also look up on googlemaps how far it is to a restaurant before deciding to get takeout all the time.. the fact that she was recently hospitalized with thoughts of harming herself and her children indicates a much more likely scenario that something wasn’t right, rather than she is weirdly and abnormally evil even though nothing prior in her life indicated that? It doesn’t make sense.

Once again, her lawyers, who know a lot more about the case and her than you do, AREN’T USING THE PSYCHOSIS DEFENSE.

[Anonymous]

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.

So carefully planned.

Exactly. The call to CVS and the text to her husband about MiraLAX were already building her own defense before she even killed them. Selfish monster.

[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?

Sadly no. Massachusetts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, you’re wrong. I know you’re rigid and tell yourself that people who use birth control aren’t REALLY Catholics, but too bad. They identify that way, tithe and attend Mass. Millions of them. Cope.

[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.

Uh, no. Nothing you wrote here was true. Thanks for letting us know you’re not a lawyer, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Gross, no, and no one is passionately defending her personally in the way that you're suggesting. Repulsive.

Yes, they are, vociferously and repeatedly. They’re repulsive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I posted one thing. A continuous cut and paste from the link I posted. From the NIH.

She will be declared fit to stand trial because that only refers to her ability to understand the legal proceedings and assist in her defense. If she and her attorney then decide to go for an insanity defense at the time of the murders, they will need to offer proof that is not just "well, my client says she was crazy when it happened and she's really sorry."

This isn't about fitness to stand trial. It's about whether they can prove her guilty of murder, a crime that has malice aforethought as an element.

https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1198#:~:text=malice%20aforethought,for%20the%20lives%20of%20others.
She definitely had malice aforethought. When you strangle someone with an exercise band for several minutes, you definitely know they are going to to die.

Especially when you just did it to the first one and saw what happened. FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We actually do this quite regularly.

We might call them crazy in conversation, but we don't excuse their crimes or let them out of jail. Brian Kohberger murdered 4 college students with a military knife - is he criminally insane because his crime was so shocking?

Nobody is saying that she should get out of jail. The argument of people claiming that she is evil and premeditated this is that she is guilty of first degree murder, specifically. The point the rest of us have been arguing is: it seems very possible that she committed these acts without any of that other stuff being true.

What? PLENTY of people on this thread have said she belongs in a cushy, upscale rehab funded by GFM donations and/or at her parents’ house.

[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: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.

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2012/02/guttmacher-statistic-catholic-womens-contraceptive-use

They are not following the tenants of the religion and therefore are not PRACTICING.

It’s “tenets” and they are PRACTICING Catholics. I’m sorry you don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It needs to be made a lot easier to put kids up for adoption.

She wouldn't have done that.

Yeah, no way. She’d have lost her Instagram, etc attention fodder.