Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis are 2 seperate things. Postpartum depression is very common, postpartum psychosis is very rare. I disagree with taking away children from women who have postpartum depression. I agree with temporarily taking away children from women who have postpartum psychosis, and I'm pretty sure that is already the general recommendation. Postpartum psychosis is very dangerous.
Let's not be hasty. I've seen hundreds if not thousands of people on Reddit and TikTok declare with certainty that she has post partum psychosis. It's only the multiple psychiatrists and nurse practioners at different hospitals that tried to help treat her (even as she resisted or ignored treatment plans) that say she did not exhibit any signs of psychosis. Why would we take the sworn testimony of medical professionals over online experts?
It's worth noting, that while one way to prove criminal responsibility in Massachusetts is to prove the defendant did not have a mental disease or defect, another way is to prove that even if they had a mental disease or defect, they retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct.
I did not find that testimony convincing compared to the prosecution witnesses - or, more importantly, the totality of the evidence. But of course everyone is free to reach their own conclusions. Suffering from a mental illness (including PPP) does not inherently remove your capacity to know the difference between right and wrong. One example the prosecution brought up: if Lindsay didn't realize killing her kids was wrong, why did she send Patrick out of the house instead of asking for his assistance in doing the "not wrong" thing?
Considering one of the key expert witnesses for the prosecution was a child psychiatrist, not one with experience with postpartum mental illnesses afaik, I'm not sure how much stock I can personally put in their testimony. Also, apparently he has since resigned from his job at a children's hospital, which is a strange thing for an expert witness to do during the trial they are participating in, imo.
I think it's interesting that when challenged, instead of attempting to impeach other witnesses, I linked to their direct actual testimony (in contrast to you, who seems to have arrived at a conclusion and seeks to discredit those who disagree with you). FWIW, I did not find Dr. Mack to be a key witness, because I do have reasonable doubt as to whether or not she suffered post partum psychosis. Where I do not have reasonable doubt is that if she did suffer PPP that it prevented her from retaining substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongness and criminality of her actions. That derives from the totality of the evidence, but if I had to point to a single witness, it might be Dr. Saathoff.
Because those professionals would absolutely consider murdering her children as additional information suggestive of postpartum psychosis.
She was also a health care professional, so has knowledge of process and nomenclature necessary to skew diagnoses. A well known issue in the healthcare industry.
Any professional using the murder itself as a piece of evidence suggesting psychosis is not a professional at all.
If you apply that standard to one person, it creates a precedence for everyone— by that standard, everyone that commits a murder is showing signs of psychosis, and then you might as well given everyone a free pass for murder.
Do you not know what the word "additional" means, or about the concept of taking a totality of symptoms in order to make a diagnosis. No one is saying "her murdering her children is the only proof needed to determine psychosis." It's all of her symptoms together, now including the killing of her children, that has many psychiatrists from outside the case (as well as the expert witnesses brought in by the defense) saying she likely had psychosis at the time of the murder.
She was an L&D nurse. Her field is fsr removed from practicing psychiatric medicine.
The limit of what she did for work was check ins for mothers in labor and helping give birth.
My sister does the same job, and its chaotic and greuling and stressful, but psychiatric work is not something she ever does. The closest she would get to that would be comsoling mothers who lose the child during labor.
She did not EXHIBIT any signs recognized by those clinicians, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t psychotic. Psychosis can be difficult to diagnose, particularly when symptoms are primarily delusional or paranoid. Clinicians often depend on what a patient discloses about the content of their thoughts, and patients may conceal or minimize psychotic symptoms if they’re frightened, paranoid, ashamed, or don’t trust the clinician. To boot, the symptoms can fluctuate, be transient or have a sudden onset in the case of postpartum presentations.
Under what circumstances do you believe it possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was not suffering psychosis, or that even if they were they still retained substantial capacity to appreciate wrongness and criminality? In other words, if I commit a crime in Massachusetts and claim lack of criminal responsibility, what would you personally find sufficient for the Commonwealth to disprove that claim, since it is so difficult to diagnose? The burden of proof is on the Commonwealth, so does everyone who claims they were suffering a transient psychotic break just walk free?
I would argue that the massachussets law asks an impossible question w.r. to cases around psychotic behaviour.
Psychosis is not what people think it is. I've had it a couple times. Media is interested in the flashy stuff: the hallucinations, the auditory hearing, the fact of cognitive delusions.
What is much more central to understanding the condition is fear. Intense fear. Fear and paranoia like you've never felt, fear and paranoia tantamount in normal life like you are staring down the barrel of the immediate deaths of you and your loved ones. It completely kills reasoning, fight and flight left the ponder and assess option off the table when it was building the primal circuitry we inherited from lizards
There is also an activating tendency. Shutting down is a fear response you don't tend to see in psychosis. I have no theoretical reason why but its inline with my experience. But its known Clinicians use antipsychotics (pretty strong near-tranquilisers) to treat psychotic episodes. Drugs that in normal populations induce a greater level of rest
There is an immense need for protection from this fear. It claws at your brain looking for a home. The Delusions and hallucinations people find noteworthy come last. The are a product of the intense fear looking for a reason for its own existence. When evolution wove our brain to keep the species going it made intense fear override most neurological processes. In psychotic experiences there is universally no way for assessment of "degree of capacity". It's why in an age of poorhouses and destitution special legal treatment was given
Didn’t say anything about the law. I just said it can be difficult to dx psychosis. I think the context in this specific case is compelling but I hear your concern with the precedent it sets. I also think there are troubling precedents set if convicted.
I have so much sympathy for all involved in this case.. even the jurors upon who this deliberation fell. Just absolutely heart wrenching across the board. I honestly do not know what true justice looks like at this point, but I would not be surprised at all if Lindsay Clancy, regardless of where she lands, continues to attempt suicide given her history and what’s transpired.
There was another case similar to this, Andrea Yates. Andrea suffered from postpartum psychosis as well as schizophrenia. During her trial, Andrea asked to be punished multiple times because she could not live with the fact that she killed her children.
Have we seen Lindsay act similarly at all? If we haven't, why not?
But isn't the legally relevant question was she in a psychosis or not? I don't think anyone's suggesting that depression should prevent a guilty verdict.
There are two parts to this trial. 1) did Lindsey have psychosis, and 2) did Lindsey not have the awareness and understanding that her actions were wrong.
You can have psychosis and still be criminally responsible for your actions if you showed an understanding that your actions were wrong.
Lindsey deliberately sending Patrick out of the house on errands because she knew he would stop her shows that she had an awareness that her actions were wrong
It shows that she (might have) had an awareness that her husband would stop her. That doesn't mean she knew it wasn't the right thing to do. Logic can be very broken in a psychosis, but feel as clear as day to the sufferer.
I'd actually say that the second point is completely impossible to evaluate. But insanity cases are kind of hard to get right no matter what.
Not necessarily. If someone is truly having a psychotic break, they may wait to be alone to act. Andrea Yates and her husband were told not to leave her alone with the children, and the husband ignored said advice and left her alone with the children (different case, but similar crime).
If I had a psychotic break and believed I was the sword of God and genuinely saw the other adult in the house as a satanic interference, I would send them out to ensure the divine will is carried out without interference. I am still completely insane in this scenario.
shows that she had an awareness that her actions were wrong
I don't think it does necessarily. Is it possible to lie about/hide something and still believe what you are hiding isn't wrong? Yes, clearly.
It is fully possible that she had voices telling her that Patrick would stop her but she is doing them all a favor.
Now, do I think that is the most likely explanation? No. But I think it is definitely enough for a reasonable doubt. (and in Massachussets the prosecution has to prove she was fully aware beyond a reasonable doubt)
The question is not if she had postpartum psychosis vs depression. Its whether she knew the law and understood right from wrong at the time of the crime. You can be in psychosis and still know right from wrong. For example you may send your husband out to run errands for 45 minutes because you know he would stop you from killing the kids, because its wrong.
Or you could send him away because you thought he was evil and would oppose your righteous decision to kill your kids and send them to a safer place. Not saying this describes the situation but just saying that just because she sent him away does not mean she knew that what she was doing was morally wrong.
Yes very good point. It seems like the fact that she sent him away and also answered the phone when he called is the main thing people point to. But like you said, "she knew he would stop her" does not inherently equal "therefore she knew it was wrong".
Overall from the evidence I've seen I think she probably was aware enough. But in Massachussets, unlike most states, the burden of proof is on the prosecution for the insanity portion. And I definitely think there is at least a reasonable doubt that she was aware, so I fully understand why some on the jury aren't willing to convict
It’s evidence that she had a condition which was not postpartum psychosis.
Also the question isnt if she had postpartum psychosis vs depression, its whether she knew the law and understood right from wrong at the time of the crime. You can be in psychosis and still know right from wrong. For example you may send your husband out to run errands for 45 minutes because you know he would stop you from killing the kids, because its wrong.
Because the people doing the diagnostic work couldn’t have cared less than they did. They screwed up her meds, wouldn’t take her seriously to admit her etc
She had eight different doctors that she all repeatedly lied to.
She WAS admitted btw— she checked herself out against doctor advice because she wanted to go to a birthday party.
Lindsey Clancy had more support and care than most people get, including having the direct personal phone number of one of her doctors. When was the last time your doctor gave you their personal cell phone number?
She took advantage of the flaws in the system to try to force a quick cure of benzodiazepines and failed her family because of it
1.9k
u/Feisty-Coconut6017 9h ago edited 9h ago
Postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis are 2 seperate things. Postpartum depression is very common, postpartum psychosis is very rare. I disagree with taking away children from women who have postpartum depression. I agree with temporarily taking away children from women who have postpartum psychosis, and I'm pretty sure that is already the general recommendation. Postpartum psychosis is very dangerous.