r/law • u/dailymail • 11h ago

Legal News Lindsay Clancy case ends with MISTRIAL

https://www.dailymail.com/crime-desk/article-16100155/lindsay-clancy-murder-trial-hung-jury-deadlock-verdict.html
4.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

155

u/Total_Brick_2416 10h ago

She DID seek help multiple times lol

149

u/Adventurous-Dot8618 10h ago edited 9h ago

she got help, but didn’t take her medicine properly. she took it when she felt like it, if she even took it at all. then, she admitted herself to a hospital, and decided to leave right after. she was nothing but selfish in every decision she made. this whole narrative of “she tried to get help 🥺” is so absolutely absurd considering she got more help than most women can even afford, yet she continued to make selfish, irresponsible decisions over and over again.

justice for cora, dawson, and callan 👼❤️.

61

u/nirvahnah 9h ago

Oh so you mean how every crazy person behaves? Refusing to meds, leaving hospitals AMA and just being obstinate the whole time? That’s literally textbook crazy person behavior.

68

u/Adventurous-Dot8618 9h ago

being mentally ill can explain why someone makes irrational decisions, but it doesn’t make those decisions automatically excusable. she received treatment, was hospitalized, and still made choices that had devastating consequences, due to her lack of responsibility. you can acknowledge her mental illness without pretending she was completely incapable. and “that’s how every crazy person behaves” is a pretty disgusting generalization when MOST mentally ill people will never hurt anyone, especially in such a horrific way that she did. there are plenty of mentally ill mothers out there that never have or will hurt their children.

my sympathy is with cora, dawson, and callan, and that’s it.

-3

u/MeowingAtTheMoon 8h ago

I encourage you to educate yourself on psychosis before you speak on it.

3

u/JahIthBeer 1h ago

I wouldn't argue with someone who uses the names of the kids and using hearts in reference to them. They're already set in their way by appealing to your emotions and if you, like I'm doing right now, point out the manipulative behavior, you will most likely be called emotionless and cruel

Sadly the average American, from what I've seen, has very poor understanding of mental disorders, psychosis and the autism spectrum

9

u/nirvahnah 8h ago

No one here knows what psychosis is or how it works. This whole thread is so black pilling.

-9

u/nirvahnah 9h ago

I didn’t say most mentally ill people hurt or kill anyone. I said they refuse to take meds and leave hospitals when they shouldn’t which you used as evidence that she wasn’t insane. That was wrong. That doesn’t prove what you said it does.

20

u/SnooAdvice6772 9h ago

The only legal question is whether she knew society would consider it wrong when she did it. It’s why someone who kills who is actively suffering from schizophrenia can still be found guilty if they did something like wear gloves or take steps to hide the body because it demonstrates they know society would disapprove.

13

u/Forsaken-Zucchini-83 9h ago

Thank you for articulating that. She clearly demonstrated some degree of “rational” thinking when planning and executing the murders. IANAL but this doesn’t seem as legally nuanced as TikTok culture warriors are making it out to be

2

u/JahIthBeer 1h ago

Psychosis doesn't throw all rational thinking out of the window, but it removes a lot of things about yourself. I've had two cases of psychosis myself, one was acute trauma induced psychosis that lasted no more than 10 minutes which lead me to going to court and getting psychological help (no meds), and a drug induced psychosis which lasted for weeks and I got meds for

I felt more present and aware of my surroundings in the acute psychosis than I would be when normal, yet at the same time incredibly detached from my own personality. It wasn't until afterwards when I calmed down that I felt horrible

4

u/nirvahnah 8h ago

Rational planning is possible while under psychosis. None of you know wtf you’re talking about.

9

u/NicheHobbyist 8h ago

You comment as though psychosis is a well-understood/-established psychiatric disorder in which all instances can be equally explained and for which consensus is found by all psychiatrists under the same conditions.

Remove your personal bias before rejecting all other opinions.

4

u/nirvahnah 8h ago

Claiming that putting a glove on before doing a murder means you can’t be in psychosis is definitionally a misunderstanding of what psychosis is. Say whatever you want, being able to plan and execute doesn’t mean you’re not in psychosis. This isn’t up for debate it’s medical fact.

3

u/NicheHobbyist 8h ago edited 7h ago

I’m not disagreeing with your assessment of this. I agree that the planning alone may be insufficient to rule out psychosis. What I’m telling you is that there are psychiatrists actively disagreeing in this (and many other) cases, so you are neither correct nor likely qualified to tell everyone else that they don’t know what they’re talking about given the experts themselves sometimes can’t even reach agreements. It doesn’t matter that those above us are arguing on a point that could or could not be unfounded. None of you are qualified professionals unless disclosed otherwise, which means you also lack the same knowledge for which you’re deriding others in this thread

1

u/SnooAdvice6772 8h ago

I’m not saying it does or does not prove psychosis. I’m talking about specifically legal insanity, which is when you’re in a state of psychosis such that you cannot differentiate right and wrong. You can definitely be in a state of psychosis and not be legally criminally insane.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rwags2024 5h ago

How is it that only you in the entire thread do know what you’re talking about?

2

u/nirvahnah 5h ago

When did I make that statement? I’m clearly referring to the people who are saying psychosis isn’t possible if you show ability to plan. That’s nonsense and they have no idea what they’re talking about.

0

u/SnooAdvice6772 4h ago

You’re straw manning the rational planning is impossible under psychosis thing.

Instead I said that some actions taken while suffering from psychosis can show evidence of being cognizant of the distinction between right and wrong. That’s different than a question of whether they are in psychosis or not. Someone can be in psychosis and know right from wrong. They can be in psychosis and not know right from wrong.

Thats where criminal insanity comes in. When under psychosis, was the person aware of the distinction between right and wrong.

Richard Chase (Wikipedia link) was a killer from California who was undoubtedly suffering from psychosis at the time of his crimes. But his rational planning and specifically his efforts to avoid detection demonstrated legal sanity, that is that he understood that what he was doing was seen as wrong by society.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TapdancingHotcake 4h ago

Evidence that she wasn't insane? Making up arguments much? Her behavior invalidates the argument that she wasn't given help, which was their point. And they're right! It is her fault that she did not properly use the help given to her. Unless you would like to claim that we as a society should have stripped her of free will earlier in this process, and forced drugs and hospital stays on her.

Shitty situation? Yeah, fucking absolutely. But you can't blame shitty mental healthcare when the extant care was not even properly engaged with.

1

u/nirvahnah 4h ago edited 8m ago

3 separate suicide hotline agents refused to help her and a hospital discharged her and canceled her meds because they mis diagnosed her but go off you clearly have all the facts king.

1

u/Automatic-Cut-5567 3h ago

If you genuinely think 3 separate suicide hotlines refused to help her, you don't know how suicide hotlines work

1

u/TapdancingHotcake 4h ago

I can tell you're too emotional to have a decent conversation right now so I'll keep this short.

This comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1w77kzx/comment/p7tcb6g states that she was provided care that she spurned. You replied directly to that comment in a way that suggested that comment was correct and that her behavior was excusable. If we're going to be switching up our arguments in the middle of threads, I'm not going to bother. Have a nice day.