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.

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.

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.

Why is it only coming up now after the defense attorney’s hand picked psychiatrist is talking to her?

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to pretend that my take is right, but this case is on a lot of peoples minds, including mine.

From what I’ve read, she was an intense perfectionist who was doing intense workouts while pregnant and “laser focusing on proper nutrition.” She resented her older two according to her diaries for taking her focus from the baby. And she snapped and decided they were better off dead than living an imperfect reality. I don’t know if that’s insanity or not.

But the doors of hell are locked from the inside.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, it is alarming how little people posting here seem to understand about psychosis, which is not a medically rare phenomenon.

Not even her own attorney is alleging psychosis.

We don’t know what her attorney will ultimately allege; any sensible defense attorney in this situation is going to play cards close to vest until they see what the prosecution can prove. There is no shot at getting her out of custody (nor should there be), and there is no PR victory to be had at this stage in a case of filicide, so they’re smart to say relatively little.

He said a ton - he went on a total rant. But said very little of value.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

She choked her kids with exercise bands, one at a time, for several minutes each.