DR ROGER MCFILLIN > Lindsey Clancy was placed on a psychiatric drug with no FDA approval for postpartum depression. Within 48 hours, she hadn't slept at all. Doctors abruptly stopped the drug, itself a dangerous move, then added a benzodiazepine and Benadryl on top of it.
Nobody had tested whether she could actually metabolize these medications. Specific genetic variants affecting drug metabolism are linked to homicidal thoughts, suicidal ideation, and akathisia, and clinical psychologist Dr. Roger McFillin says the onset "can happen immediately."
In under four months, Clancy went from one prescription to 13 drugs. "The more drugs that you enter into the system, the body, and then you stop them and you start them and you increase doses, you are increasing the likelihood of an adverse event," @DrMcFillin says, adding that "drug induced homicides do occur, especially within these psychiatric drugs.
The personnel who treated Lindsay were presented with evidence of possible psychosis very early on. Zoloft can trigger manic and mixed episodes in people with BPAD. A Nurse Practitioner suspected BPAD immediately when Lindsay reported severe insomnia in response to Zoloft.
It may or may not be relevant also that as a labor and delivery nurse she was vaccinated and then subjected to polypharmacy thereafter.
As a therapist and for Clinical coordinator who worked closely with the psychiatrist in community mental health , I completely appreciate and agree with everything you said! Thank you for sharing your insights !
AwakeNotWoke, when you or your loved one is ill, your experience as a physician or healthcare professional can go out of the window. It happened to me several to the consternation of my husband. It happened to my sister several times when her husband needed several emergency care visits. You become a patient.
I was on Zoloft for 20+years, never knew there was a black box warning on it, nor did any of my providers every ask me whether I had suicidal ideations. I d/c'd it two years ago, and my doc wrote me for something stronger. When I read the information sheet, well, it was tough to withdraw from the meds, but here's a question I asked my MD: "If you asked that question, isn't it likely the patient will lie to keep the pharmacopia full.
Did Lindsay suffer from BPAD ( stands for Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is a mood disorder characterized by episodes of depression and mania ) before or after her postpartum depression?
Is she just making up the story or was she hallucinating about the commanding evil male voice story?
Definitely the husband must have been fed up with her before she killed the kids with her depression they didn't understand. Why couldn't they get someone to help out with childcare?
Privileged. Where was the nanny? They had their parents helping as well. Thats even worse. Why didn't she simply take a few weeks off? Her life is over, she may end up committing suicide.
DM, you said : "Nobody had tested whether she could actually metabolize these medications."
Can you explain how and when a doctor does this kind of test ?
I have never had a doctor show concern about any drug s/he was prescribing. Ever . Over my life time I have been to at least a 100 doctors .
Considering Clancy was a nurse , she had a good or great knowledge about drugs . She should have know better . Could it be she is evil along with all the other stated diagnoses?
It’s not nonsense. I know individuals with health problems that decided to use some sort of DNA testing to help identify what medications could not be tolerated & may be causing their health issues. Very useful but not part of our medical / insurance coverage. The test is an out of pocket expense.
Ok, Sharon. I’m not a doctor. But this is how you ask a question such as this, using Ai.
GROK > Expand on this …. Are there tests that can be run to find whether a person can metabolize certain medications, such as Specific genetic variants affecting drug metabolism that are linked to homicidal thoughts, suicidal ideation, and akathisia?
GROK >> I’ll look up pharmacogenetic testing for drug metabolism and any documented links between specific variants and those psychiatric side effects.
GROK >>> Yes. There are clinical tests that look at how a person metabolizes many psychiatric drugs.
They do not currently function as a reliable “will this person become homicidal or suicidal” screen.
They do identify genetic variants that change drug levels, and higher (or rapidly fluctuating) levels are one of the mechanisms proposed for akathisia, agitation, and, in some case series, suicidal or violent ideation.
What the tests actually measure
Most of the relevant tests are pharmacogenomic (PGx) panels focused on cytochrome P450 enzymes that break down antidepressants, antipsychotics, and related drugs:
Gene / Common phenotypes
CYP2D6
Poor / intermediate / normal / ultrarapid
CYP2C19
Poor / intermediate / normal / rapid / ultrarapid
CYP2B6
Variable
CYP2C9
Intermediate / poor
A poor metabolizer of a given enzyme typically gets higher blood levels of the parent drug at a standard dose.
An ultrarapid metabolizer may clear some drugs so fast they never reach a stable level (or, for prodrugs, convert them too aggressively).
Commercial panels (GeneSight, ClarityX Mindwell, Genomind, Tempus, hospital lab panels, etc.) usually use a cheek swab.
CPIC and some FDA labels already give dosing guidance for several of these gene–drug pairs.
FDA also publishes a table of pharmacogenetic associations. 
The claimed link to akathisia, suicidal ideation, and violence
2. Concurrent inhibitors (other antidepressants, some antibiotics, antifungals, grapefruit, etc.) can further “phenoconvert” a person toward poor-metabolizer status.
3. Resulting high or unstable levels increase risk of akathisia (inner restlessness that patients often describe as unbearable), agitation, insomnia, and emotional dysregulation.
4. Akathisia has long been associated with suicidal and, in forensic case series, violent behavior.
Supporting literature is mostly case series and forensic work, not large prospective trials:
• Lucire & Crotty (2011) and related papers described people who committed homicide or serious violence while on antidepressants (often prescribed for situational distress, not major depression).
Almost all had at least one variant CYP450 allele; many were also on interacting drugs.
Symptoms remitted after the drug was stopped. 
• A 2016 forensic paper and a 2021 comparative study reported higher rates of variant CYP alleles among people with medication-associated violence or “altered emotional states” (akathisia, agitation, suicidal ideation) than among controls. 
• A small youth study of escitalopram found slower CYP2D6 phenotype associated with higher akathisia scores, and certain HTR2A genotypes associated with higher self-injury / harm-to-others scores. 
Mainstream reviews note associations between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 poor-metabolizer status and higher drug exposure plus more adverse effects, and some papers mention possible relevance to antidepressant-induced suicidality.
They also emphasize that current CPIC/FDA guidelines do not treat PGx as a predictor of suicide or homicide. 
What guidelines actually support
• Supported: Use CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 (and sometimes CYP2B6) results to choose starting dose or an alternative drug for several SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and some antipsychotics, because exposure differences are real and dose-related side effects are more common in poor metabolizers.
• Not supported as a standalone predictor: Using the same genes to say a person “will” or “will not” develop suicidal or homicidal ideation. The boxed warning on antidepressants for increased suicidality in people under 25 is population-level, not genotype-specific.
• FDA has repeatedly warned companies not to market combinatorial PGx tests as if they can predict response or specific psychiatric adverse events when that claim is not in the drug label. 
Practical limitations
• Phenoconversion is common: a genetically normal metabolizer can act like a poor metabolizer if they take a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor (paroxetine, fluoxetine, bupropion, some others).
• Panels differ in which alleles they test and how they bin recommendations; results are not interchangeable.
• Ultrarapid CYP2D6 status has been linked in some data to suicide/intoxication risk with certain prodrugs (e.g., codeine), which is a different mechanism from poor-metabolizer toxicity.
• Therapeutic drug monitoring (blood levels) plus clinical observation of akathisia remains more immediately useful than genotype alone.
Bottom line
Yes — PGx tests for CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and related genes are available and can identify people who are likely to run high (or unstable) levels of many psychotropics.
That pharmacokinetic difference is a plausible contributor to akathisia and, in published case series, to severe behavioral toxicity including suicidal and homicidal ideation.
It is not currently a validated screening test that can rule those outcomes in or out.
The most defensible use is still: if someone has had a severe activation/akathisia reaction, or is about to start a high-risk substrate, genotype plus a careful med review (and sometimes blood levels) can help choose a safer dose or a drug that uses a different pathway.
This is not medical advice; interpretation belongs with a clinician who can combine genotype, current medications, and symptoms.
To add to your observation, I even had two doctor become extremely angry when I said I tended to overreact to drugs, or, in second case, said I had high blood pressure reading only because of white coat syndrome. Both then deliberately overprescribed, and in the second case the drug took affect while driving home and I fell asleep at the wheel, drove onto someone's lawn. Sadly, doctors are just as flawed as the rest of us.
Yes, they are flawed. And how many years has it been since they were in school and trained in the hospital? Basically they are like all people. They don't care about their patients. You can attest to that by the time they spend with you. Their lack of interest.
Checking the metabolism of drugs is not routinely done. Might be done if there is a problem. If you read about people who have problems with insomnia when they drink even a small amount of coffee, you might read that they are slow metabolizers of caffeine, for instance.
I had a trial at the same time this was happening. My client was unmedicated, shot the pizza guy, stole his car and went on a road rage, shooting at random people, after pepper spraying a gas station attendant. She was floridly psychotic, but still got 40 years. Texas v. Massachusetts on crime and punishment. i imagine.
Thank you for that info. Yes, I would have to raise an insanity affirmative defense, and since my client was "restored" to competency, it could not be raised with any level of success. George Parnham, Andrea Yates' attorney still practices down here. He tried like a champ, but she is still in prison.
Agreed!! The whole "caring" part of patient care ended a long time ago. I was a respiratory therapist before I became an attorney. I saw it die...literally.
And she took relatively few of any drug she was prescribed, which zeroes your statements. She also never told each MD she was seeing about the others. Almost like someone was planning a way to look like they were seeking help. Psychotics show symptoms. She didn't show any until the moment of the murders. We call that murder. The fact the husband had a bird in the bush shows she knew the marriage was already dead. In her twisted mind, this was her 'escape' from the marriage i.e. wipe the slate clean. Murderers don't express the same logic you and I do. It's always twisted thinking but they aren't psychotic. That's why they are murderers, and you and I, aren't.
The jury consisted of nine women and three men. What we haven't heard, or at least I haven't, is what happened during voir dire. I understand that only one juror, a man, refused to acquit. He held his ground, and that resulted in the mistrial. Although I don't know everything about this trial, I still salute this man.
11 people did the right thing. It's almost by definition that the state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt when 11 out of 12 were not convinced.
Reasonable doubt about what? That she killed her children? No, not that. She did absolutely murder her children in cold blood. There is no doubt about that fact.
The real doubt should be whether she is using her insanity plea to stay out of prison.
I would also like to point out that the national media is all over this reasonable doubt issue, using it to incriminate a lone juror. Does that not give you pause that the media has taken a side? When the media start pushing a narrative, it almost always means it's propaganda.
And the US system of justice requires a unanimous verdict for such crimes, not a majority opinion. That lone juror was being intimidated by the others and the defense attorney who wasn’t getting the outcome he wanted, putting the safety of that lone juror in jeopardy.
If you drank Kool Aid given to you by Jimmy Jones and you gave some to your kids, or if someone spiked your drink with a powerful hallucinogenic drug, like the US did to some of its own population during MKULTRA, and you began having delusions and hallucinations afar your drink was spiked and you thought God or the Devil was commanding you to do something terrible and you did, most Americans would say you should be executed.
Well your own brain can manufacture substances similar to hallucinogenic drugs and some people may respond to polypharmacy and sleep deprivation in a similar way.
Of course she--or her attorney--is using the insanity plea to stay out of prison. A stay that will cost considerably more over the course of her lifetime due to her self inflicted hemiparesis.
The Commonwealth's lack of a capital punishment option just cements the case the Commonwealth is a carefully curated dung heap.
YOu care about what the media says? You say they lie so why listen to anything they say? I know if a friend of mine lied once, twice, three times, they're out man, they will not be listened to about ANYTHING. But it seems all the peons keep hanging on what liars say to them. (I am not calling you a peon, I am saying, that is what they think of us)
Why can't we all have a vote on it? Why rely on only 12 in a jury? What would be the best we can hope for? That all of us get a say, right? Well now that can be done in a flash. Why do we not call for it? Why are we satisfied with so little?
If what you suggested was to happen you would get tyranny of the majority. American men comprise roughly 50% of the population and many of them are bloodthirsty woman hating nutjobs and many of the women are no better.
I don't. I am fed up with men telling women what to do. Fed up. No man should tell anyone what to do until they tell other men to stop fucking killing our humans. Ok? How many babies do the bombs kill? How many pregnant women? How many children and other innocents? What about all the destruction of our ancestors' work? The destroyed buildings and lives? So men really cannot tell anyone what to fucking do until they get their stupid shit together. And they're still bombing now.
Yes of course there are but it's a matter of ratio. Look how many women armies there are as opposed to men's. Secret societies. Looking at women presidents or CEO's only reinforces the fact that women can only get ahead if they act like men. Politics is totally male-designed. So is the money system. So is everything we know. They killed the witches. They were not witches, they were women who knew how to heal through plants, who had a "sixth sense" of the plant, animal and human dimensions. They killed them off for what? This crap that they put in that we still have now. So yes, I will cuss it all because I hate it and so should you.
Well who makes the rule that we have to stick to a subject?
The relation is that we are talking about women who do evil acts and the terrain women (and men) live in which it totally male-designed. There is no counter to this, it is clear to see. Constitutions, bibles, money systems, all male-designed. These ae pretty much the gist of our society.
This is a rather impressive amount of indignation directed at a topic the post never actually addresses.
Instead of responding to the argument, you pivot to war, bombing, civilian casualties, destroyed buildings, “men,” and essentially every grievance available except the one under discussion. That may make for an emotionally forceful paragraph, but it does not constitute a rebuttal.
The existence of horrific violence elsewhere does not somehow suspend the ability to discuss a separate moral, legal, or social issue. Nor does being male disqualify someone from expressing an opinion until every other man on earth has achieved acceptable behavior. That standard is so obviously incoherent that it collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
If the original argument is wrong, then identify the premise that is wrong, explain the flaw in the reasoning, and offer a better argument. That would at least engage the subject.
What you have done instead is change the subject entirely and then congratulate yourself for winning a debate nobody else was having.
There may be a substantive case to be made for your position. Your post simply never makes it.
He spells Ms. Clancy’s first name in different ways throughout this short piece. Several of his details are incorrect, but that’s the easiest to point out.
No apology necessary - you're right about the hate and I'm disheartened too. My comment was a nod to the medical industry saying for forty years "we don't know what causes autism but it's definitely not the vaccines!"
I suspect that most of those calling for her execution were very quiet when Chris Watts pleaded guilty to escape the death penalty.
From my observations these same morons also have no problem with the US deliberately targeting and executing a school full of young girls in Minab in Iran.
It seems like some medications are being given out like candy, a lot are being over prescribed and some are being given so many different kinds I do not see how they function at all. If things are going on in your life that cause you to be down, upset, cry or stressed they want to push depression meds on you . There are times in your life when the situation, medical issues or loss of a loved one will cause all that. I believe that therapy, talking about it should be the first thing that needs to happen because I know from experience the meds are not the answer for me as they only made me feel worse, more closed off, numb like and when combining meds you have to be careful because everyone has didn’t experiences and can cause different medical issues. I’m not sure why someone would be on so any meds, nor why anyone would think it would be okay for someone not to be hospitalized if they were on that many meds and in daily therapy. It takes weeks to get medication in your system for anyone to be able to tell if it’s working, if it’s too much, not enough, how someone is acting or thinking while taking those type meds. Only A few days in the hospital for someone on those type meds and that many is irresponsible.
Andrea Yates was also on so many rapidly-changing psychiatric meds that her psychiatrist should have been charged with criminal negligence and possibly something like accessory to manslaughter if such a thing exists.
I believe Big Pharma paid a number of influencers to inflame the debate on both sides -- with ridiculous women lamenting having children in extreme language, or filming themselves throwing ice cubes into bathtubs to express their rage at having small children -- and on the other side, men saying this just shows why women are irrational and shouldn't have the vote. All of this sound and fury to set everyone at each other's throats while the elephant in the room -- the fact that psychiatric meds clearly can cause homicidal behavior which would otherwise never have occurred -- walks silently out, unnoticed by most.
Would that the elephant walks out. Unfortunately, the elephant remains, and apparently will continue to remain, all the while adding excrement, and no one can figure out why the situation deteriorates.
No way can we forget or excuse the deaths of three innocent children. However, I remember when I was trying to quit smoking. Graduating to cigars, chewing tobacco, etc. wasn't working so I finally asked my MD at the time about it and got a Rx for Chantix. Whoa!!! I never got the urge to kill someone, but I had to stop after about five days. Incredibly bad dreams and urges.
Then there's those shooters. Every single case where they tell you whether or not the shooter was on prescription psychotropic drugs, they were.
So, yes, horrible what happened, but was she to blame or the assholes who gave her that evil stuff.
She was to blame for what she put into her body. But our society doesn't put blame on the sovereign individual. Society continues the enslavement model where your masters, the ones you listen to every day breathlessly waiting for their next moves, the ones who impose further and further intrusions, frauds and deceptions upon you, while you obey their every word, pay their every penalty, then go blaming them on substack for stuff you are responsible for yourself. That is reality. The fiction is that these people own you. But everyone prefers to believe the fiction right now because again, they want to avoid facing themselves and their part in it. You are still playing a part in it. And while you blame anyone but yourself for what goes into your body, then you're committing the worse crime, the crime that starts the whole ball rolling - the crime of relinquishing your body autonomy.
I agree with you on this point. It does not matter if the drug was legal or illegal, prescribed or OTC. It is still a person's choice to take the drug. Doctors make prescription errors frequently, and some of those errors are deadly. A patient is under no obligation to take the meds (unless court-ordered, but that's another issue entirely), and in many cases refusal to take prescribed medication has saved lives. That is not hyperbole. A patient has the responsibility of informing themselves about the risks and benefits of the drug, how it functions for their specific complaint, and what side-effects are associated with it. That is informed consent. If they do not feel sufficiently informed, they need not consent. This is the responsibility of the patient, and when they choose to take a drug, they also accept responsibility for the outcome of having taken that drug.
Interestingly, as evidenced in her trial, Lindsay actually did not take all those prescription drugs. She took a little bit here and there, sometimes taking fractional doses rather than full doses, skipping doses. It makes one wonder how a drug cocktail was supposed to have induced some kind of drug-fueled murder spee if most of those drugs were still in the pill bottle.
My 44 years as a practicing psychologist should count for something as I offer a simple opinion. The defendant in this case can be simultaneously the victim of PPD and polypharmacy and still be entirely culpable in the murder of these innocent children. 99.something percent of women experience stress in raising a family and yet do not resort to these demonic behaviors. Her punishment would indeed be a deterrent to other women to seriously think twice before trusting the psychiatric establishment to the extent that she did.
With all the family & doctors knowing she had severe mental health, many mental health breakdowns how could they possible leave her alone with her children, knowing what they knew.
This woman needed extensive long term care. At least 6 mo. to a year at a highly rated mental health care.
Psychiatrist Dr Josef Witt-Doerring > Drawing on the medical record and the defense's filings, board-certified psychiatrist walks through the months leading up to that day: a mother who sought help for postpartum anxiety and depression, and a treatment path that escalated from Zoloft to a rotating "cocktail" of psychiatric medications, Prozac, Seroquel, amitriptyline and others as her condition worsened rather than improved.
Though correlation is not causation, given the known neuroinflammatory effects of the modRNA/LNP ‘vaccines’, it would be interesting to know if Lindsey Clansey got them, and what here anti-spike antibody titers are.
I read somewhere that, although she had many prescriptions from different doctors, there were very few pills missing from the bottles so it appears that she did not take them -- only filled the prescriptions. The only pills she took for sure were the ones she took immediately before jumping out the window in her "suicide attempt".
I also do not believe that a truly insane person in a psychotic episode could plan everything out like she did and carry on a normal phone conversation with her husband in the midst of it.
If she is well enough now to stand trial, why is she pleading not guilty and trying to save her own life? You would think she would be horrified by what she did during "psychosis" and that she was unable to successfully kill herself, despite medical training, and would be happy to get the death penalty now. Even if she doesn't get the death penalty, she should never be allowed into society again as she has already proven she is a danger to even her own loved ones, never mind society in general.
I also saw or heard information relative to her many prescriptions and the fact that she didn't actually take all that many pills due to her fear of side effects, or similar. So the constant banging of the 13 prescriptions drum as a trigger for her "psychosis" may not be based in actual fact.
John, I share much of your bewilderment about this case, particularly concerning the medical system. Thirty prescriptions involving 13 psychiatric drugs in a matter of months, a recent psychiatric hospitalization, and yet discussion of returning this woman to work as a labor and delivery nurse? I would like to know a great deal more about how that happened.
Where I part company with you somewhat is when legitimate questions begin drifting toward insinuations for which I don't yet see evidence.
You wonder whether Lindsay deliberately chose a suicide method from which she expected to recover. That's possible, but she wound up paralyzed from the waist down. That is a rather extraordinary outcome for someone supposedly calculating a dramatic but survivable gesture.
I'm even more reluctant to draw implications from Patrick's subsequent divorce, move and remarriage. Perhaps his behavior strikes some people as strange, but strange isn't evidence. He lost all three of his children. Unless there is actual evidence connecting him to the killings or showing that he knew something he hasn't disclosed, I don't think his rebuilding a life afterward gets us very far.
What continues to trouble me is the question largely missing from theories that Lindsay was rationally and methodically committing murder: What was her motive?
There was apparently no lover, financial gain, custody battle or plan for a wonderful child-free future. Nor does this resemble the familiar murder-suicide in which a parent kills the children to punish a departing spouse. By all accounts she had been a loving mother who deteriorated dramatically, suffered severe insomnia and frightening thoughts, repeatedly sought psychiatric help, was subjected to an astonishing succession of medications, killed the children she loved and then catastrophically destroyed her own life.
Planning doesn't settle the issue for me. A profoundly disturbed person can still plan actions. The legal question is what reality that person believed she was operating within and whether she could appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing.
So I think there really is a “forest dark” here. But my greatest suspicion falls on the psychiatric system that somehow took a struggling mother seeking help and, within months, left us with three dead children and a permanently disabled mother accused of murdering them.
That part of this story desperately needs investigation.
And perhaps that's part of why Lindsay became so profoundly disturbed. Thirty prescriptions involving 13 psychiatric drugs in a matter of months, while her mental condition was deteriorating, is not some incidental detail in this case.
I don't claim that psychiatric drugs invariably “scramble the brain.” They can help people as well. But when someone deteriorates this catastrophically while doctors are repeatedly adding, changing and discontinuing powerful medications, surely the treatment itself has to be investigated as part of the story.
The question isn't simply, “Was Lindsay crazy?” It's also: What happened to her mind, and what role, if any, did this extraordinary course of psychiatric treatment play in getting her there?
Exactly. At some point you have to ask whether you're treating the patient or treating the side effects of the last treatment.
Thirteen drugs and 30 prescriptions while a woman's mental condition is deteriorating should set off alarm bells. Maybe the underlying illness caused the catastrophe, maybe the drugs contributed, maybe it was some combination. But treating that prescribing history as incidental makes no sense to me.
Your auto-repair analogy is pretty good. If the engine gets worse every time the mechanic opens the hood, eventually somebody ought to stop handing him wrenches.
Your paragraph concerning lack of motive, quoted below, is compelling.
"There was apparently no lover, financial gain, custody battle or plan for a wonderful child-free future. Nor does this resemble the familiar murder-suicide in which a parent kills the children to punish a departing spouse. By all accounts she had been a loving mother who deteriorated dramatically, suffered severe insomnia and frightening thoughts, repeatedly sought psychiatric help, was subjected to an astonishing succession of medications, killed the children she loved and then catastrophically destroyed her own life."
Patrick Clancy’s lawyers have aggressively moved to shut down online speculation regarding his body language, microexpressions, and accusations of deception.
"[Lindsay] Clancy never actually admitted to the killings, but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. 'They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.'
He also said, if that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth didn’t sufficiently prove Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the killings because of her mental state at the time."
Reddington has recently pointed out that after Lindsay Clancy emerged from her coma following her "suicide attempt," she had no memory of the event and had to be told what happened.
Regarding the command hallucinations and the concept of "pseudomemories," Reddington's recent court arguments directly target how memory and suggestions have shaped the narrative of the case.
The False Screen-Door Memory: To illustrate that Lindsay Clancy’s mind has constructed false memories based on information given to her, Reddington raised an example in court. He noted that Clancy explicitly remembered cutting a window screen before jumping. However, investigators proved the screen was completely intact. Reddington argued this proves she is susceptible to pseudomemories regarding the events of that day.
The "Command Hallucination" Contradiction: During the actual trial, the defense leaned heavily on expert testimony stating Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and acted on a "command hallucination". However, prosecutors heavily cross-examined defense experts on whether Clancy truly heard a voice or if the idea was influenced, suggested, or coached by psychiatrists and legal questioning after the fact. By bringing up her total lack of actual memory and pointing out documented instances of false memories, Reddington is now attempting to dismantle the prosecution’s timeline and assertions, arguing that the entire case relies on speculation rather than concrete proof.
"The judge in the Lindsay Clancy murder case denied a motion by her lawyer asking to find his client not guilty in the deaths of her three children on Oct. 1.
Judge William Sullivan found county prosecutors had presented enough evidence for any reasonable jury to potentially conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Clancy was responsible for the murders.
“There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” Sullivan wrote in his ruling."
It's my firm opinion that the judge overstepped his authority here. If Judge Sullivan personally holds this belief, he should have gone no further than denying the defense motion to find Lindsey not guilty. This is not a bench trial without a jury. In finding that "prosecutors had presented enough evidence for any reasonable jury to potentially conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Clancy was responsible for the murders," Sullivan has:
■ Given prosecutors and police investigators cover for their unconscientious work;
■ Supplanted his personal opinion for potential jury deliberations on the issue of WHETHER LIndsey actually killed her children and flung herself from a second story window;
■ Essentially made the prosecution's decision to retry the case a foregone conclusion.
I would like to see Defense Attorney Reddington zealously make these arguments in his client's favor. I'm on the verge of believing Sullivan should recuse himself from the case based upon this biased ruling.
I am not a legal expert and I have no emotional investment in the socio-political protests taking place outside the courtroom. For me, it is a matter of principle. A judge should not draw an overriding conclusion in a potential jury retrial of a mistrial. Judge Sullivan has usurped the potential new jury's decision-making responsibility here, making a "retrial," in essence, nothing more than a glorified sentencing hearing.
I couldn't agree more with your astute observations.. And I couldn't disagree more with the deranged commentary on the Epoch Times article. What an eye opener. Thank you for linking it.
Your post is very interesting, ANW. Intriguing. On Tuesday morning, September 29, I had begun watching the Clancy hearing online when I was interrupted by two lengthy, consecutive, time-sensitive phone calls, so did not see that hearing live. Although it's available on YouTube, I haven't gone back to watch it but have seen portions on the local Boston News.
In the link below, ABC News isolates a short clip summarizing Attorney Reddington's arguments regarding the prosecution's failure to prove Lindsey committed the murders of her children.
Reddington makes good points that may dissuade the prosecution from retrying the case, depending on how the court rules on the pending motions.
Three and one-half years have passed since the killings. It would seem nearly impossible to overcome the poorly conducted police investigation at this point to prove Lindsey committed the killings, absent her admission of guilt. Since she has no direct recollection of the event or of her own suicide attempt, aside from what her then-husband and doctors told her afterward, and because she cannot be compelled to take the stand, I do not see how the prosecution can prove she committed the killings or that, if so, she was not mentally impaired at the time.
I was truly astonished that at least one prosecution psychologist was willing to offer the definitive opinion that Lindsey was NOT hearing voices/experiencing command hallucinations. That would seem to require the skill of retroactive mind-reading.
The suggestion that imposed false memories, whether intentional or presumptive, may play a strong role in Lindsey's own after-the-fact beliefs about what had happened deserves serious consideration.
NOTE: The selection of two women as the faces of the prosecution seems to be a blatant calculation by the district attorney. Some of their remarks about Lindsey at trial make me wonder whether they have children of their own. They don't seem to have a sense of how extremely abnormal it appears (to me) for them to assume a woman in her right mind could undertake to murder her own beloved children.
This is a very reasonable comment from you Turfseer. You are more compassionate than I would have expected and your reasoning does not appear to have been distorted by the well researched and know cognitive biases of a hard RWA ideologue. Where I part company with you somewhat is when you object to legitimate questions drifting toward intimations for which you don't yet see evidence. Before knowing where to look for evidence, one must often hypothesize and speculation can lead to hypotheses. And I"m not sure that saying she "...purportedly tried to kill herself by jumping from a second-story window, whereupon she sustained injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down" is intimating that she faked a suicide attempt.
This was a completely reasonable statement by John Leake: "Four months after his wife strangled his three children, husband Patrick Clancy moved to New York City and filed for divorce. About four months later, he started dating the woman who became his second wife. At the same time, he has described Lyndsay as a loving wife and mother who indeed suffered from a psychotic break from reality. To be sure, everyone processes trauma and grief differently, and I can understand that Mr. Clancy badly needed a change of scenery. Nevertheless, per standard procedure, law enforcement would be fully justified in taking a close look at him."
I believe there is reasonable doubt in this case, and that if Clancy did carry out the killings that she was most likely in the grip of bipolar disorder with postpartum onset.
However, commenter "Hannah" raises some questions:
"Nothing about the evidence makes sense without the spouse’s version of events. Spinal injuries consistent with being unconscious during the fall, beds moved, doors locked, medicines in spouse’s glove box, defendant’s phone never unlocked with her own face after earlier that afternoon… No investigation into circumstantial oddities and later coincidences. Her attorney has used cryptic and conflicting language throughout, and when he explains why they asked for a bifurcated trial, it sounds as if he felt pushed into a corner to speak using the assumption of her having physically undertaken the actions she was accused of when he doesn’t really believe she did.
On the other hand, with the press this has received we are likely to see some further clamp down on medical autonomy."
I think we're actually fairly close on this one. I agree that speculation can be the beginning of investigation. You notice something that doesn't fit, formulate a hypothesis, and then look for evidence that either supports or undermines it.
My objection begins when the hypothesis starts being treated as evidence for itself.
And to be fair to Leake, he repeatedly signals that he is wondering rather than claiming. My point about the window wasn't simply his use of “purportedly.” He specifically wonders whether Lindsay may have calculated that the jump would produce dramatic but survivable injuries. That's certainly a legitimate hypothesis to investigate. I just don't see evidence yet that establishes it, particularly given the catastrophic result.
The same applies to Patrick. I have no objection to law enforcement looking closely at the spouse in a case like this. That's exactly what investigators should do. But moving to New York, divorcing and eventually remarrying after losing three children may strike us as unusual; it isn't evidence that he participated in their deaths.
That's also how I view Hannah's list. If those assertions are accurate, by all means investigate them. But anomalies aren't affirmative evidence of an alternative perpetrator. There is a large logical distance between “something about Patrick's account doesn't fit” and “Patrick killed the children.”
Where we clearly agree is on reasonable doubt. I believe Lindsay was profoundly mentally disturbed, and the extraordinary psychiatric treatment and prescribing history may be an important part of explaining how she reached that state.
So I'm quite willing to entertain hypotheses. I just want the evidentiary burden to remain where it belongs: hypotheses should lead us toward evidence, not gradually become substitutes for it.
Patrick Clancy’s lawyers have aggressively moved to shut down online speculation regarding his body language, microexpressions, and accusations of deception.
"[Lindsay] Clancy never actually admitted to the killings, but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. 'They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.'
He also said, if that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth didn’t sufficiently prove Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the killings because of her mental state at the time."
Reddington has recently pointed out that after Lindsay Clancy emerged from her coma following her "suicide attempt," she had no memory of the event and had to be told what happened.
Regarding the command hallucinations and the concept of "pseudomemories," Reddington's recent court arguments directly target how memory and suggestions have shaped the narrative of the case.
The False Screen-Door Memory: To illustrate that Lindsay Clancy’s mind has constructed false memories based on information given to her, Reddington raised an example in court. He noted that Clancy explicitly remembered cutting a window screen before jumping. However, investigators proved the screen was completely intact. Reddington argued this proves she is susceptible to pseudomemories regarding the events of that day.
The "Command Hallucination" Contradiction: During the actual trial, the defense leaned heavily on expert testimony stating Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and acted on a "command hallucination". However, prosecutors heavily cross-examined defense experts on whether Clancy truly heard a voice or if the idea was influenced, suggested, or coached by psychiatrists and legal questioning after the fact. By bringing up her total lack of actual memory and pointing out documented instances of false memories, Reddington is now attempting to dismantle the prosecution’s timeline and assertions, arguing that the entire case relies on speculation rather than concrete proof.
Awake, even accepting your account of Lindsay’s faulty recollection about the screen, that would show that a particular memory was unreliable. It would not establish that the entire case was fabricated or implicate Patrick.
Reddington’s challenge to the prosecution’s evidence is a defense argument, not an established finding. And speculation about Patrick’s “microexpressions,” or his lawyers challenging accusations against him, is not evidence of guilt.
My position is that Lindsay’s mental deterioration left her without criminal responsibility. That does not require inventing a conspiracy involving her husband. If you are suggesting Patrick was involved in the children’s deaths, what concrete evidence supports that allegation?
But isn't the dramatic change precisely what makes the case so disturbing?
If Lindsay had been psychotic, violent or profoundly unstable for the previous 36 years, we'd have a very different case. Instead, we have a woman who had apparently functioned normally, became a mother and nurse, and then deteriorated dramatically after childbirth while suffering severe insomnia, seeking psychiatric help and being cycled through an extraordinary number of prescriptions.
People certainly can develop serious psychiatric symptoms without having displayed them throughout their previous lives. The question is what caused this particular woman's sudden deterioration—postpartum illness, the medications, some combination, or something else.
Her previous 36 years don't disprove that something went terribly wrong with her mind. To me, the contrast is part of the mystery.
There is no evidence that she was a normal functional person. just what was presented and assumed.
I am assuming that you know about narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths and how they become that way. I am sure you have crossed paths with a few in your life. I am sure this case is much more involved than that little window the defense presented in court.
There's no evidence that she's a narcissisti or a psychopath. They tend not to throw themselves from buildings. And there may be heterogeneity in when post-partum psychosis presents. There's not a big literature base. One of the psychiatrists in the Clancy case said she'd never treated a patient with it. You may be confusing Lindsay with Chris Watts.
Drugs wipe out the glands in the brain, which contribute to thinking, logic, learning, memory, emotional development, behavior and more. Doctors don't study nutrition and what happens, when food or substances enter into the bloodstream, through ingestion or injection. The bloodstream carries the substances in them through the entire body...and into the brain. The bloodstream is designed to carry nutrients to NOURISH the organs, glands and cells. Drugs do not nourish, they are toxic and will harm the glands and organs.. They negatively impact the glands in the brain causing brain-damage. In the last 75 years, people started going regularly to doctors for drugs and vaccines. The mental and physical health of the American people has declined greatly. America used to be #1 in World health. it is now in 47th Place. What can be done with someone who was put on many drugs, which creates brain-damage? Someone who has killed her own children. Lindsey can not be loosed in society. However, society is also to blame for promoting toxic drugs.
Mandatory Third Party Testing from without the industry was not done with vaccines...and most likely not with drugs. Little pamphlets which come with drugs show side effects, but doctors don't make a big deal about them. Many patients don't even read the information. Prescribers should be held responsible too.
She murdered her three precious children. Even worse is the thought that the remaining two witnessed the death of their siblings. It is all too horrible to even think about. She was lucid enough to seek help and take all those medicines and make plans to return to work and give her nanny instructions. If she truly had those urges while on Earth didn't she ask someone to come take care of the babies to protect them. She is a murderer. The medical system is a disaster anyway especially the psychiatric system. She should have been smart enough to know that. But God forbid if she had returned to the Maternity Ward to work. What Horrors would she have committed there
DR ROGER MCFILLIN > Lindsey Clancy was placed on a psychiatric drug with no FDA approval for postpartum depression. Within 48 hours, she hadn't slept at all. Doctors abruptly stopped the drug, itself a dangerous move, then added a benzodiazepine and Benadryl on top of it.
Nobody had tested whether she could actually metabolize these medications. Specific genetic variants affecting drug metabolism are linked to homicidal thoughts, suicidal ideation, and akathisia, and clinical psychologist Dr. Roger McFillin says the onset "can happen immediately."
In under four months, Clancy went from one prescription to 13 drugs. "The more drugs that you enter into the system, the body, and then you stop them and you start them and you increase doses, you are increasing the likelihood of an adverse event," @DrMcFillin says, adding that "drug induced homicides do occur, especially within these psychiatric drugs.
The personnel who treated Lindsay were presented with evidence of possible psychosis very early on. Zoloft can trigger manic and mixed episodes in people with BPAD. A Nurse Practitioner suspected BPAD immediately when Lindsay reported severe insomnia in response to Zoloft.
It may or may not be relevant also that as a labor and delivery nurse she was vaccinated and then subjected to polypharmacy thereafter.
As a therapist and for Clinical coordinator who worked closely with the psychiatrist in community mental health , I completely appreciate and agree with everything you said! Thank you for sharing your insights !
AwakeNotWoke, when you or your loved one is ill, your experience as a physician or healthcare professional can go out of the window. It happened to me several to the consternation of my husband. It happened to my sister several times when her husband needed several emergency care visits. You become a patient.
I was on Zoloft for 20+years, never knew there was a black box warning on it, nor did any of my providers every ask me whether I had suicidal ideations. I d/c'd it two years ago, and my doc wrote me for something stronger. When I read the information sheet, well, it was tough to withdraw from the meds, but here's a question I asked my MD: "If you asked that question, isn't it likely the patient will lie to keep the pharmacopia full.
Did Lindsay suffer from BPAD ( stands for Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is a mood disorder characterized by episodes of depression and mania ) before or after her postpartum depression?
Is she just making up the story or was she hallucinating about the commanding evil male voice story?
Definitely the husband must have been fed up with her before she killed the kids with her depression they didn't understand. Why couldn't they get someone to help out with childcare?
Commanding male voice...of course. Toxic masculinity is behind everything, until it is toxic femininity goosed by poly-pharmacy.
They had a nanny and both their parents took turns staying over to help care for the children.
Privileged. Where was the nanny? They had their parents helping as well. Thats even worse. Why didn't she simply take a few weeks off? Her life is over, she may end up committing suicide.
DM, you said : "Nobody had tested whether she could actually metabolize these medications."
Can you explain how and when a doctor does this kind of test ?
I have never had a doctor show concern about any drug s/he was prescribing. Ever . Over my life time I have been to at least a 100 doctors .
Considering Clancy was a nurse , she had a good or great knowledge about drugs . She should have know better . Could it be she is evil along with all the other stated diagnoses?
I didn’t say that. Dr Roger McFillin did.
Sorry DM, but have you ever heard such nonsense?
It’s not nonsense. I know individuals with health problems that decided to use some sort of DNA testing to help identify what medications could not be tolerated & may be causing their health issues. Very useful but not part of our medical / insurance coverage. The test is an out of pocket expense.
Ok, Sharon. I’m not a doctor. But this is how you ask a question such as this, using Ai.
GROK > Expand on this …. Are there tests that can be run to find whether a person can metabolize certain medications, such as Specific genetic variants affecting drug metabolism that are linked to homicidal thoughts, suicidal ideation, and akathisia?
GROK >> I’ll look up pharmacogenetic testing for drug metabolism and any documented links between specific variants and those psychiatric side effects.
GROK >>> Yes. There are clinical tests that look at how a person metabolizes many psychiatric drugs.
They do not currently function as a reliable “will this person become homicidal or suicidal” screen.
They do identify genetic variants that change drug levels, and higher (or rapidly fluctuating) levels are one of the mechanisms proposed for akathisia, agitation, and, in some case series, suicidal or violent ideation.
What the tests actually measure
Most of the relevant tests are pharmacogenomic (PGx) panels focused on cytochrome P450 enzymes that break down antidepressants, antipsychotics, and related drugs:
Gene / Common phenotypes
CYP2D6
Poor / intermediate / normal / ultrarapid
CYP2C19
Poor / intermediate / normal / rapid / ultrarapid
CYP2B6
Variable
CYP2C9
Intermediate / poor
A poor metabolizer of a given enzyme typically gets higher blood levels of the parent drug at a standard dose.
An ultrarapid metabolizer may clear some drugs so fast they never reach a stable level (or, for prodrugs, convert them too aggressively).
Commercial panels (GeneSight, ClarityX Mindwell, Genomind, Tempus, hospital lab panels, etc.) usually use a cheek swab.
CPIC and some FDA labels already give dosing guidance for several of these gene–drug pairs.
FDA also publishes a table of pharmacogenetic associations. 
The claimed link to akathisia, suicidal ideation, and violence
The hypothesis is pharmacokinetic:
1. Variant alleles (especially loss-of-function alleles in CYP2D6 / CYP2C19 / CYP2C9) slow clearance.
2. Concurrent inhibitors (other antidepressants, some antibiotics, antifungals, grapefruit, etc.) can further “phenoconvert” a person toward poor-metabolizer status.
3. Resulting high or unstable levels increase risk of akathisia (inner restlessness that patients often describe as unbearable), agitation, insomnia, and emotional dysregulation.
4. Akathisia has long been associated with suicidal and, in forensic case series, violent behavior.
Supporting literature is mostly case series and forensic work, not large prospective trials:
• Lucire & Crotty (2011) and related papers described people who committed homicide or serious violence while on antidepressants (often prescribed for situational distress, not major depression).
Almost all had at least one variant CYP450 allele; many were also on interacting drugs.
Symptoms remitted after the drug was stopped. 
• A 2016 forensic paper and a 2021 comparative study reported higher rates of variant CYP alleles among people with medication-associated violence or “altered emotional states” (akathisia, agitation, suicidal ideation) than among controls. 
• A small youth study of escitalopram found slower CYP2D6 phenotype associated with higher akathisia scores, and certain HTR2A genotypes associated with higher self-injury / harm-to-others scores. 
Mainstream reviews note associations between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 poor-metabolizer status and higher drug exposure plus more adverse effects, and some papers mention possible relevance to antidepressant-induced suicidality.
They also emphasize that current CPIC/FDA guidelines do not treat PGx as a predictor of suicide or homicide. 
What guidelines actually support
• Supported: Use CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 (and sometimes CYP2B6) results to choose starting dose or an alternative drug for several SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and some antipsychotics, because exposure differences are real and dose-related side effects are more common in poor metabolizers.
• Not supported as a standalone predictor: Using the same genes to say a person “will” or “will not” develop suicidal or homicidal ideation. The boxed warning on antidepressants for increased suicidality in people under 25 is population-level, not genotype-specific.
• FDA has repeatedly warned companies not to market combinatorial PGx tests as if they can predict response or specific psychiatric adverse events when that claim is not in the drug label. 
Practical limitations
• Phenoconversion is common: a genetically normal metabolizer can act like a poor metabolizer if they take a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor (paroxetine, fluoxetine, bupropion, some others).
• Panels differ in which alleles they test and how they bin recommendations; results are not interchangeable.
• Ultrarapid CYP2D6 status has been linked in some data to suicide/intoxication risk with certain prodrugs (e.g., codeine), which is a different mechanism from poor-metabolizer toxicity.
• Therapeutic drug monitoring (blood levels) plus clinical observation of akathisia remains more immediately useful than genotype alone.
Bottom line
Yes — PGx tests for CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and related genes are available and can identify people who are likely to run high (or unstable) levels of many psychotropics.
That pharmacokinetic difference is a plausible contributor to akathisia and, in published case series, to severe behavioral toxicity including suicidal and homicidal ideation.
It is not currently a validated screening test that can rule those outcomes in or out.
The most defensible use is still: if someone has had a severe activation/akathisia reaction, or is about to start a high-risk substrate, genotype plus a careful med review (and sometimes blood levels) can help choose a safer dose or a drug that uses a different pathway.
This is not medical advice; interpretation belongs with a clinician who can combine genotype, current medications, and symptoms.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_baf78cd6-5f46-4971-b9e7-811ac2438345
To add to your observation, I even had two doctor become extremely angry when I said I tended to overreact to drugs, or, in second case, said I had high blood pressure reading only because of white coat syndrome. Both then deliberately overprescribed, and in the second case the drug took affect while driving home and I fell asleep at the wheel, drove onto someone's lawn. Sadly, doctors are just as flawed as the rest of us.
Yes, they are flawed. And how many years has it been since they were in school and trained in the hospital? Basically they are like all people. They don't care about their patients. You can attest to that by the time they spend with you. Their lack of interest.
Blame to victim. She could not judge. She was insane.
Yes, she could. She sent her husband out to do errands making sure he would be gone longer than called for. She killed her children. She is guilty.
Her brain was under assault for months; she was not in her right mind. Anyone who would do such a thing is not in their right mind.
I totally agree! 👍
Checking the metabolism of drugs is not routinely done. Might be done if there is a problem. If you read about people who have problems with insomnia when they drink even a small amount of coffee, you might read that they are slow metabolizers of caffeine, for instance.
Cytochrome tests
I had a trial at the same time this was happening. My client was unmedicated, shot the pizza guy, stole his car and went on a road rage, shooting at random people, after pepper spraying a gas station attendant. She was floridly psychotic, but still got 40 years. Texas v. Massachusetts on crime and punishment. i imagine.
Unlike other states, in Massachusetts the prosecutor has to prove the defendant was sane at the time of the crime. That’s a higher bar.
Thank you for that info. Yes, I would have to raise an insanity affirmative defense, and since my client was "restored" to competency, it could not be raised with any level of success. George Parnham, Andrea Yates' attorney still practices down here. He tried like a champ, but she is still in prison.
Her doctor did not care one bit about her well-being. Just like most doctors.
Agreed!! The whole "caring" part of patient care ended a long time ago. I was a respiratory therapist before I became an attorney. I saw it die...literally.
I have NEVER had a doctor that cared about me; I'm 80. That lie that doctors care is just that, a lie!
And she took relatively few of any drug she was prescribed, which zeroes your statements. She also never told each MD she was seeing about the others. Almost like someone was planning a way to look like they were seeking help. Psychotics show symptoms. She didn't show any until the moment of the murders. We call that murder. The fact the husband had a bird in the bush shows she knew the marriage was already dead. In her twisted mind, this was her 'escape' from the marriage i.e. wipe the slate clean. Murderers don't express the same logic you and I do. It's always twisted thinking but they aren't psychotic. That's why they are murderers, and you and I, aren't.
She told her husband she had thoughts of harming her children prior. She was a victim of polypharmacy, even if she cut back on some of the drugs.
Exactly!!! The drs are the ones who messed her up in a major way. They should be the ones held accountable.
Totally! Pharma protects its own.
Iatrogenic hell rolls on
Yes. I have been on psychiatric meds but never had tests except for Lithium.
The jury consisted of nine women and three men. What we haven't heard, or at least I haven't, is what happened during voir dire. I understand that only one juror, a man, refused to acquit. He held his ground, and that resulted in the mistrial. Although I don't know everything about this trial, I still salute this man.
One person doing the right thing makes all the difference.
11 people did the right thing. It's almost by definition that the state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt when 11 out of 12 were not convinced.
Reasonable doubt about what? That she killed her children? No, not that. She did absolutely murder her children in cold blood. There is no doubt about that fact.
The real doubt should be whether she is using her insanity plea to stay out of prison.
I would also like to point out that the national media is all over this reasonable doubt issue, using it to incriminate a lone juror. Does that not give you pause that the media has taken a side? When the media start pushing a narrative, it almost always means it's propaganda.
And the US system of justice requires a unanimous verdict for such crimes, not a majority opinion. That lone juror was being intimidated by the others and the defense attorney who wasn’t getting the outcome he wanted, putting the safety of that lone juror in jeopardy.
If you drank Kool Aid given to you by Jimmy Jones and you gave some to your kids, or if someone spiked your drink with a powerful hallucinogenic drug, like the US did to some of its own population during MKULTRA, and you began having delusions and hallucinations afar your drink was spiked and you thought God or the Devil was commanding you to do something terrible and you did, most Americans would say you should be executed.
Well your own brain can manufacture substances similar to hallucinogenic drugs and some people may respond to polypharmacy and sleep deprivation in a similar way.
Of course she--or her attorney--is using the insanity plea to stay out of prison. A stay that will cost considerably more over the course of her lifetime due to her self inflicted hemiparesis.
The Commonwealth's lack of a capital punishment option just cements the case the Commonwealth is a carefully curated dung heap.
YOu care about what the media says? You say they lie so why listen to anything they say? I know if a friend of mine lied once, twice, three times, they're out man, they will not be listened to about ANYTHING. But it seems all the peons keep hanging on what liars say to them. (I am not calling you a peon, I am saying, that is what they think of us)
Amen and thank you.
Why can't we all have a vote on it? Why rely on only 12 in a jury? What would be the best we can hope for? That all of us get a say, right? Well now that can be done in a flash. Why do we not call for it? Why are we satisfied with so little?
If what you suggested was to happen you would get tyranny of the majority. American men comprise roughly 50% of the population and many of them are bloodthirsty woman hating nutjobs and many of the women are no better.
Find & watch what some of these female jurors are now publicly saying.
I don't. I am fed up with men telling women what to do. Fed up. No man should tell anyone what to do until they tell other men to stop fucking killing our humans. Ok? How many babies do the bombs kill? How many pregnant women? How many children and other innocents? What about all the destruction of our ancestors' work? The destroyed buildings and lives? So men really cannot tell anyone what to fucking do until they get their stupid shit together. And they're still bombing now.
Can’t you argue your point without all the swear words?
Yes but I don't want to. Is that all you got out of my outpour?
There are some wicked women who commit horrendous crimes too.
Yes of course there are but it's a matter of ratio. Look how many women armies there are as opposed to men's. Secret societies. Looking at women presidents or CEO's only reinforces the fact that women can only get ahead if they act like men. Politics is totally male-designed. So is the money system. So is everything we know. They killed the witches. They were not witches, they were women who knew how to heal through plants, who had a "sixth sense" of the plant, animal and human dimensions. They killed them off for what? This crap that they put in that we still have now. So yes, I will cuss it all because I hate it and so should you.
What does that have to do with Clancy killing her 3 children ?
Well who makes the rule that we have to stick to a subject?
The relation is that we are talking about women who do evil acts and the terrain women (and men) live in which it totally male-designed. There is no counter to this, it is clear to see. Constitutions, bibles, money systems, all male-designed. These ae pretty much the gist of our society.
This is a rather impressive amount of indignation directed at a topic the post never actually addresses.
Instead of responding to the argument, you pivot to war, bombing, civilian casualties, destroyed buildings, “men,” and essentially every grievance available except the one under discussion. That may make for an emotionally forceful paragraph, but it does not constitute a rebuttal.
The existence of horrific violence elsewhere does not somehow suspend the ability to discuss a separate moral, legal, or social issue. Nor does being male disqualify someone from expressing an opinion until every other man on earth has achieved acceptable behavior. That standard is so obviously incoherent that it collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
If the original argument is wrong, then identify the premise that is wrong, explain the flaw in the reasoning, and offer a better argument. That would at least engage the subject.
What you have done instead is change the subject entirely and then congratulate yourself for winning a debate nobody else was having.
There may be a substantive case to be made for your position. Your post simply never makes it.
He broke the law. He admitted Reasonable Doubt, but refused to obey the law.
You can’t possibly know that. And the other jurors don’t either.
This is all arguing over crumbs. Why doesn't anyone who wants to hear the evidence get to vote as a jury? Why must it only be 12?
That is quite a story. Mr. Leake is reliable in his attentiveness to details. Incredibly sad.
Mr. Leake got some details wrong. Obviously he made comments based on conjecture and not actual testimony and evidence.
He spells Ms. Clancy’s first name in different ways throughout this short piece. Several of his details are incorrect, but that’s the easiest to point out.
I have believed from the beginning that the husband and the doctors should be on trial, not Lindsay.
The doctors for sure. Maybe not the husband. He didn’t know what to do.
this is another take on the husband...and if you read her previous posts she didn't feel this way...
https://jennamccarthy.substack.com/p/patrick-said?r=185rk6&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Certainly more questions than answers...but we know it isn't the prescriptions!
How do you know?
That was sarcasm, friend.
Well, with all the hate directed at this woman, I just didn't know. I am very disheartened at the public backlash. So, I am sorry I misinterpreted.
No apology necessary - you're right about the hate and I'm disheartened too. My comment was a nod to the medical industry saying for forty years "we don't know what causes autism but it's definitely not the vaccines!"
I suspect that most of those calling for her execution were very quiet when Chris Watts pleaded guilty to escape the death penalty.
From my observations these same morons also have no problem with the US deliberately targeting and executing a school full of young girls in Minab in Iran.
It seems like some medications are being given out like candy, a lot are being over prescribed and some are being given so many different kinds I do not see how they function at all. If things are going on in your life that cause you to be down, upset, cry or stressed they want to push depression meds on you . There are times in your life when the situation, medical issues or loss of a loved one will cause all that. I believe that therapy, talking about it should be the first thing that needs to happen because I know from experience the meds are not the answer for me as they only made me feel worse, more closed off, numb like and when combining meds you have to be careful because everyone has didn’t experiences and can cause different medical issues. I’m not sure why someone would be on so any meds, nor why anyone would think it would be okay for someone not to be hospitalized if they were on that many meds and in daily therapy. It takes weeks to get medication in your system for anyone to be able to tell if it’s working, if it’s too much, not enough, how someone is acting or thinking while taking those type meds. Only A few days in the hospital for someone on those type meds and that many is irresponsible.
Andrea Yates was also on so many rapidly-changing psychiatric meds that her psychiatrist should have been charged with criminal negligence and possibly something like accessory to manslaughter if such a thing exists.
I believe Big Pharma paid a number of influencers to inflame the debate on both sides -- with ridiculous women lamenting having children in extreme language, or filming themselves throwing ice cubes into bathtubs to express their rage at having small children -- and on the other side, men saying this just shows why women are irrational and shouldn't have the vote. All of this sound and fury to set everyone at each other's throats while the elephant in the room -- the fact that psychiatric meds clearly can cause homicidal behavior which would otherwise never have occurred -- walks silently out, unnoticed by most.
Everyone needs to get off anti-depressants and figure out what is wrong with their lives.
You’re so right about that. All they do is make you worse than ever! Very dangerous drugs. But they sure do make a ton of money for Big Pharma.
Would that the elephant walks out. Unfortunately, the elephant remains, and apparently will continue to remain, all the while adding excrement, and no one can figure out why the situation deteriorates.
No way can we forget or excuse the deaths of three innocent children. However, I remember when I was trying to quit smoking. Graduating to cigars, chewing tobacco, etc. wasn't working so I finally asked my MD at the time about it and got a Rx for Chantix. Whoa!!! I never got the urge to kill someone, but I had to stop after about five days. Incredibly bad dreams and urges.
Then there's those shooters. Every single case where they tell you whether or not the shooter was on prescription psychotropic drugs, they were.
So, yes, horrible what happened, but was she to blame or the assholes who gave her that evil stuff.
She was to blame for what she put into her body. But our society doesn't put blame on the sovereign individual. Society continues the enslavement model where your masters, the ones you listen to every day breathlessly waiting for their next moves, the ones who impose further and further intrusions, frauds and deceptions upon you, while you obey their every word, pay their every penalty, then go blaming them on substack for stuff you are responsible for yourself. That is reality. The fiction is that these people own you. But everyone prefers to believe the fiction right now because again, they want to avoid facing themselves and their part in it. You are still playing a part in it. And while you blame anyone but yourself for what goes into your body, then you're committing the worse crime, the crime that starts the whole ball rolling - the crime of relinquishing your body autonomy.
She was not to blame for what she put into her body. She asked for help and she was trusting. That does not make her morally culpable.
If prescription meds became over the counter, then you have a point. Until then, the prescriber as a solemn duty...
I agree with you on this point. It does not matter if the drug was legal or illegal, prescribed or OTC. It is still a person's choice to take the drug. Doctors make prescription errors frequently, and some of those errors are deadly. A patient is under no obligation to take the meds (unless court-ordered, but that's another issue entirely), and in many cases refusal to take prescribed medication has saved lives. That is not hyperbole. A patient has the responsibility of informing themselves about the risks and benefits of the drug, how it functions for their specific complaint, and what side-effects are associated with it. That is informed consent. If they do not feel sufficiently informed, they need not consent. This is the responsibility of the patient, and when they choose to take a drug, they also accept responsibility for the outcome of having taken that drug.
Interestingly, as evidenced in her trial, Lindsay actually did not take all those prescription drugs. She took a little bit here and there, sometimes taking fractional doses rather than full doses, skipping doses. It makes one wonder how a drug cocktail was supposed to have induced some kind of drug-fueled murder spee if most of those drugs were still in the pill bottle.
The drs were to blame!
Nurse Michele’s thoughts on the Lindsay Clancy case…things that make you go…hmmm.
Just a couple of questions that seem reasonable for…Real Science to ask…
WHEN A MOTHER KILLS THREE CHILDREN, SHOULDN’T WE ASK -WHAT HAPPENED TO HER BRAIN?
https://x.com/nurse_michele/status/2096013742748115343?s=46
THE PSYCH-ALTERING POTENTIAL OF LINDSAY CLANCY’S PRESCRIBED PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS: EFFECTS, CLEARANCE & WITHDRAWAL
https://x.com/nurse_michele/status/2097332874378633706?s=46
My 44 years as a practicing psychologist should count for something as I offer a simple opinion. The defendant in this case can be simultaneously the victim of PPD and polypharmacy and still be entirely culpable in the murder of these innocent children. 99.something percent of women experience stress in raising a family and yet do not resort to these demonic behaviors. Her punishment would indeed be a deterrent to other women to seriously think twice before trusting the psychiatric establishment to the extent that she did.
Wow, she was not suffering from normal postpartum stress!
You know, the Covid vaccine might have contributed. That’s a great insight.
With all the family & doctors knowing she had severe mental health, many mental health breakdowns how could they possible leave her alone with her children, knowing what they knew.
This woman needed extensive long term care. At least 6 mo. to a year at a highly rated mental health care.
Of course she did, those kids should not have been in the house with her!
Psychiatrist Dr Josef Witt-Doerring > Drawing on the medical record and the defense's filings, board-certified psychiatrist walks through the months leading up to that day: a mother who sought help for postpartum anxiety and depression, and a treatment path that escalated from Zoloft to a rotating "cocktail" of psychiatric medications, Prozac, Seroquel, amitriptyline and others as her condition worsened rather than improved.
https://youtu.be/WUSH0D9LjSA?is=RErnZixOjGRjC7yd
Dr Drew Show > Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring on SSRI Violence
https://www.youtube.com/live/t9Q0MqKR8wI?is=CA7ri_3b9PLIngqe
Dr Josef Witt-Doerring's videos are absolutely essential viewing for this case.
100%
Thank you so much for sharing these. They are a must watch for everyone interested in this case.
Agreed !
I love Dr. Josef's podcasts; he is doing a public service in educating our mostly ignorant public on such matters!
Though correlation is not causation, given the known neuroinflammatory effects of the modRNA/LNP ‘vaccines’, it would be interesting to know if Lindsey Clansey got them, and what here anti-spike antibody titers are.
I read somewhere that, although she had many prescriptions from different doctors, there were very few pills missing from the bottles so it appears that she did not take them -- only filled the prescriptions. The only pills she took for sure were the ones she took immediately before jumping out the window in her "suicide attempt".
I also do not believe that a truly insane person in a psychotic episode could plan everything out like she did and carry on a normal phone conversation with her husband in the midst of it.
If she is well enough now to stand trial, why is she pleading not guilty and trying to save her own life? You would think she would be horrified by what she did during "psychosis" and that she was unable to successfully kill herself, despite medical training, and would be happy to get the death penalty now. Even if she doesn't get the death penalty, she should never be allowed into society again as she has already proven she is a danger to even her own loved ones, never mind society in general.
I also saw or heard information relative to her many prescriptions and the fact that she didn't actually take all that many pills due to her fear of side effects, or similar. So the constant banging of the 13 prescriptions drum as a trigger for her "psychosis" may not be based in actual fact.
John, I share much of your bewilderment about this case, particularly concerning the medical system. Thirty prescriptions involving 13 psychiatric drugs in a matter of months, a recent psychiatric hospitalization, and yet discussion of returning this woman to work as a labor and delivery nurse? I would like to know a great deal more about how that happened.
Where I part company with you somewhat is when legitimate questions begin drifting toward insinuations for which I don't yet see evidence.
You wonder whether Lindsay deliberately chose a suicide method from which she expected to recover. That's possible, but she wound up paralyzed from the waist down. That is a rather extraordinary outcome for someone supposedly calculating a dramatic but survivable gesture.
I'm even more reluctant to draw implications from Patrick's subsequent divorce, move and remarriage. Perhaps his behavior strikes some people as strange, but strange isn't evidence. He lost all three of his children. Unless there is actual evidence connecting him to the killings or showing that he knew something he hasn't disclosed, I don't think his rebuilding a life afterward gets us very far.
What continues to trouble me is the question largely missing from theories that Lindsay was rationally and methodically committing murder: What was her motive?
There was apparently no lover, financial gain, custody battle or plan for a wonderful child-free future. Nor does this resemble the familiar murder-suicide in which a parent kills the children to punish a departing spouse. By all accounts she had been a loving mother who deteriorated dramatically, suffered severe insomnia and frightening thoughts, repeatedly sought psychiatric help, was subjected to an astonishing succession of medications, killed the children she loved and then catastrophically destroyed her own life.
Planning doesn't settle the issue for me. A profoundly disturbed person can still plan actions. The legal question is what reality that person believed she was operating within and whether she could appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing.
So I think there really is a “forest dark” here. But my greatest suspicion falls on the psychiatric system that somehow took a struggling mother seeking help and, within months, left us with three dead children and a permanently disabled mother accused of murdering them.
That part of this story desperately needs investigation.
Is there a more powerful lever on the planet than a psych med? It directly scrambles the brain.
Swaths of society are subscribers.
And perhaps that's part of why Lindsay became so profoundly disturbed. Thirty prescriptions involving 13 psychiatric drugs in a matter of months, while her mental condition was deteriorating, is not some incidental detail in this case.
I don't claim that psychiatric drugs invariably “scramble the brain.” They can help people as well. But when someone deteriorates this catastrophically while doctors are repeatedly adding, changing and discontinuing powerful medications, surely the treatment itself has to be investigated as part of the story.
The question isn't simply, “Was Lindsay crazy?” It's also: What happened to her mind, and what role, if any, did this extraordinary course of psychiatric treatment play in getting her there?
Very lightly dusting the mental state under superb observation, perhaps validly useful. Throwing spaghetti against the wall by the handful? No.
13 drugs? That's considered malpractice in auto repair. Apparently par for medicine?
Exactly. At some point you have to ask whether you're treating the patient or treating the side effects of the last treatment.
Thirteen drugs and 30 prescriptions while a woman's mental condition is deteriorating should set off alarm bells. Maybe the underlying illness caused the catastrophe, maybe the drugs contributed, maybe it was some combination. But treating that prescribing history as incidental makes no sense to me.
Your auto-repair analogy is pretty good. If the engine gets worse every time the mechanic opens the hood, eventually somebody ought to stop handing him wrenches.
Your paragraph concerning lack of motive, quoted below, is compelling.
"There was apparently no lover, financial gain, custody battle or plan for a wonderful child-free future. Nor does this resemble the familiar murder-suicide in which a parent kills the children to punish a departing spouse. By all accounts she had been a loving mother who deteriorated dramatically, suffered severe insomnia and frightening thoughts, repeatedly sought psychiatric help, was subjected to an astonishing succession of medications, killed the children she loved and then catastrophically destroyed her own life."
Patrick Clancy’s lawyers have aggressively moved to shut down online speculation regarding his body language, microexpressions, and accusations of deception.
"[Lindsay] Clancy never actually admitted to the killings, but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. 'They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.'
He also said, if that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth didn’t sufficiently prove Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the killings because of her mental state at the time."
Reddington has recently pointed out that after Lindsay Clancy emerged from her coma following her "suicide attempt," she had no memory of the event and had to be told what happened.
Regarding the command hallucinations and the concept of "pseudomemories," Reddington's recent court arguments directly target how memory and suggestions have shaped the narrative of the case.
The False Screen-Door Memory: To illustrate that Lindsay Clancy’s mind has constructed false memories based on information given to her, Reddington raised an example in court. He noted that Clancy explicitly remembered cutting a window screen before jumping. However, investigators proved the screen was completely intact. Reddington argued this proves she is susceptible to pseudomemories regarding the events of that day.
The "Command Hallucination" Contradiction: During the actual trial, the defense leaned heavily on expert testimony stating Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and acted on a "command hallucination". However, prosecutors heavily cross-examined defense experts on whether Clancy truly heard a voice or if the idea was influenced, suggested, or coached by psychiatrists and legal questioning after the fact. By bringing up her total lack of actual memory and pointing out documented instances of false memories, Reddington is now attempting to dismantle the prosecution’s timeline and assertions, arguing that the entire case relies on speculation rather than concrete proof.
Postscript to my comments of last night:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-denies-lawyers-motion-to-find-lindsay-clancy-not-guilty-in-murder-of-3-children-6097773
Quoting the linked article:
"The judge in the Lindsay Clancy murder case denied a motion by her lawyer asking to find his client not guilty in the deaths of her three children on Oct. 1.
Judge William Sullivan found county prosecutors had presented enough evidence for any reasonable jury to potentially conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Clancy was responsible for the murders.
“There was evidence introduced, both physical and circumstantial, that would permit a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge of murder,” Sullivan wrote in his ruling."
It's my firm opinion that the judge overstepped his authority here. If Judge Sullivan personally holds this belief, he should have gone no further than denying the defense motion to find Lindsey not guilty. This is not a bench trial without a jury. In finding that "prosecutors had presented enough evidence for any reasonable jury to potentially conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Clancy was responsible for the murders," Sullivan has:
■ Given prosecutors and police investigators cover for their unconscientious work;
■ Supplanted his personal opinion for potential jury deliberations on the issue of WHETHER LIndsey actually killed her children and flung herself from a second story window;
■ Essentially made the prosecution's decision to retry the case a foregone conclusion.
I would like to see Defense Attorney Reddington zealously make these arguments in his client's favor. I'm on the verge of believing Sullivan should recuse himself from the case based upon this biased ruling.
I am not a legal expert and I have no emotional investment in the socio-political protests taking place outside the courtroom. For me, it is a matter of principle. A judge should not draw an overriding conclusion in a potential jury retrial of a mistrial. Judge Sullivan has usurped the potential new jury's decision-making responsibility here, making a "retrial," in essence, nothing more than a glorified sentencing hearing.
I couldn't agree more with your astute observations.. And I couldn't disagree more with the deranged commentary on the Epoch Times article. What an eye opener. Thank you for linking it.
Your post is very interesting, ANW. Intriguing. On Tuesday morning, September 29, I had begun watching the Clancy hearing online when I was interrupted by two lengthy, consecutive, time-sensitive phone calls, so did not see that hearing live. Although it's available on YouTube, I haven't gone back to watch it but have seen portions on the local Boston News.
In the link below, ABC News isolates a short clip summarizing Attorney Reddington's arguments regarding the prosecution's failure to prove Lindsey committed the murders of her children.
https://youtu.be/aoe3nbKy3Vo?si=WCP3Xh1TVQf3BNNb
Reddington makes good points that may dissuade the prosecution from retrying the case, depending on how the court rules on the pending motions.
Three and one-half years have passed since the killings. It would seem nearly impossible to overcome the poorly conducted police investigation at this point to prove Lindsey committed the killings, absent her admission of guilt. Since she has no direct recollection of the event or of her own suicide attempt, aside from what her then-husband and doctors told her afterward, and because she cannot be compelled to take the stand, I do not see how the prosecution can prove she committed the killings or that, if so, she was not mentally impaired at the time.
I was truly astonished that at least one prosecution psychologist was willing to offer the definitive opinion that Lindsey was NOT hearing voices/experiencing command hallucinations. That would seem to require the skill of retroactive mind-reading.
The suggestion that imposed false memories, whether intentional or presumptive, may play a strong role in Lindsey's own after-the-fact beliefs about what had happened deserves serious consideration.
NOTE: The selection of two women as the faces of the prosecution seems to be a blatant calculation by the district attorney. Some of their remarks about Lindsey at trial make me wonder whether they have children of their own. They don't seem to have a sense of how extremely abnormal it appears (to me) for them to assume a woman in her right mind could undertake to murder her own beloved children.
This is a very reasonable comment from you Turfseer. You are more compassionate than I would have expected and your reasoning does not appear to have been distorted by the well researched and know cognitive biases of a hard RWA ideologue. Where I part company with you somewhat is when you object to legitimate questions drifting toward intimations for which you don't yet see evidence. Before knowing where to look for evidence, one must often hypothesize and speculation can lead to hypotheses. And I"m not sure that saying she "...purportedly tried to kill herself by jumping from a second-story window, whereupon she sustained injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist down" is intimating that she faked a suicide attempt.
This was a completely reasonable statement by John Leake: "Four months after his wife strangled his three children, husband Patrick Clancy moved to New York City and filed for divorce. About four months later, he started dating the woman who became his second wife. At the same time, he has described Lyndsay as a loving wife and mother who indeed suffered from a psychotic break from reality. To be sure, everyone processes trauma and grief differently, and I can understand that Mr. Clancy badly needed a change of scenery. Nevertheless, per standard procedure, law enforcement would be fully justified in taking a close look at him."
I believe there is reasonable doubt in this case, and that if Clancy did carry out the killings that she was most likely in the grip of bipolar disorder with postpartum onset.
However, commenter "Hannah" raises some questions:
"Nothing about the evidence makes sense without the spouse’s version of events. Spinal injuries consistent with being unconscious during the fall, beds moved, doors locked, medicines in spouse’s glove box, defendant’s phone never unlocked with her own face after earlier that afternoon… No investigation into circumstantial oddities and later coincidences. Her attorney has used cryptic and conflicting language throughout, and when he explains why they asked for a bifurcated trial, it sounds as if he felt pushed into a corner to speak using the assumption of her having physically undertaken the actions she was accused of when he doesn’t really believe she did.
On the other hand, with the press this has received we are likely to see some further clamp down on medical autonomy."
I think we're actually fairly close on this one. I agree that speculation can be the beginning of investigation. You notice something that doesn't fit, formulate a hypothesis, and then look for evidence that either supports or undermines it.
My objection begins when the hypothesis starts being treated as evidence for itself.
And to be fair to Leake, he repeatedly signals that he is wondering rather than claiming. My point about the window wasn't simply his use of “purportedly.” He specifically wonders whether Lindsay may have calculated that the jump would produce dramatic but survivable injuries. That's certainly a legitimate hypothesis to investigate. I just don't see evidence yet that establishes it, particularly given the catastrophic result.
The same applies to Patrick. I have no objection to law enforcement looking closely at the spouse in a case like this. That's exactly what investigators should do. But moving to New York, divorcing and eventually remarrying after losing three children may strike us as unusual; it isn't evidence that he participated in their deaths.
That's also how I view Hannah's list. If those assertions are accurate, by all means investigate them. But anomalies aren't affirmative evidence of an alternative perpetrator. There is a large logical distance between “something about Patrick's account doesn't fit” and “Patrick killed the children.”
Where we clearly agree is on reasonable doubt. I believe Lindsay was profoundly mentally disturbed, and the extraordinary psychiatric treatment and prescribing history may be an important part of explaining how she reached that state.
So I'm quite willing to entertain hypotheses. I just want the evidentiary burden to remain where it belongs: hypotheses should lead us toward evidence, not gradually become substitutes for it.
Patrick Clancy’s lawyers have aggressively moved to shut down online speculation regarding his body language, microexpressions, and accusations of deception.
"[Lindsay] Clancy never actually admitted to the killings, but still there was not a full investigation into the deaths of the Clancy children, Reddington told the court Tuesday. 'They just immediately assumed that this woman was guilty.'
He also said, if that wasn’t enough, the Commonwealth didn’t sufficiently prove Clancy should be held criminally responsible for the killings because of her mental state at the time."
Reddington has recently pointed out that after Lindsay Clancy emerged from her coma following her "suicide attempt," she had no memory of the event and had to be told what happened.
Regarding the command hallucinations and the concept of "pseudomemories," Reddington's recent court arguments directly target how memory and suggestions have shaped the narrative of the case.
The False Screen-Door Memory: To illustrate that Lindsay Clancy’s mind has constructed false memories based on information given to her, Reddington raised an example in court. He noted that Clancy explicitly remembered cutting a window screen before jumping. However, investigators proved the screen was completely intact. Reddington argued this proves she is susceptible to pseudomemories regarding the events of that day.
The "Command Hallucination" Contradiction: During the actual trial, the defense leaned heavily on expert testimony stating Clancy suffered from postpartum psychosis and acted on a "command hallucination". However, prosecutors heavily cross-examined defense experts on whether Clancy truly heard a voice or if the idea was influenced, suggested, or coached by psychiatrists and legal questioning after the fact. By bringing up her total lack of actual memory and pointing out documented instances of false memories, Reddington is now attempting to dismantle the prosecution’s timeline and assertions, arguing that the entire case relies on speculation rather than concrete proof.
Awake, even accepting your account of Lindsay’s faulty recollection about the screen, that would show that a particular memory was unreliable. It would not establish that the entire case was fabricated or implicate Patrick.
Reddington’s challenge to the prosecution’s evidence is a defense argument, not an established finding. And speculation about Patrick’s “microexpressions,” or his lawyers challenging accusations against him, is not evidence of guilt.
My position is that Lindsay’s mental deterioration left her without criminal responsibility. That does not require inventing a conspiracy involving her husband. If you are suggesting Patrick was involved in the children’s deaths, what concrete evidence supports that allegation?
Yes, like what happened in the 36 years before the murder? People like her don't get psychotic 1 monthe before a murder .
But isn't the dramatic change precisely what makes the case so disturbing?
If Lindsay had been psychotic, violent or profoundly unstable for the previous 36 years, we'd have a very different case. Instead, we have a woman who had apparently functioned normally, became a mother and nurse, and then deteriorated dramatically after childbirth while suffering severe insomnia, seeking psychiatric help and being cycled through an extraordinary number of prescriptions.
People certainly can develop serious psychiatric symptoms without having displayed them throughout their previous lives. The question is what caused this particular woman's sudden deterioration—postpartum illness, the medications, some combination, or something else.
Her previous 36 years don't disprove that something went terribly wrong with her mind. To me, the contrast is part of the mystery.
There is no evidence that she was a normal functional person. just what was presented and assumed.
I am assuming that you know about narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths and how they become that way. I am sure you have crossed paths with a few in your life. I am sure this case is much more involved than that little window the defense presented in court.
There's no evidence that she's a narcissisti or a psychopath. They tend not to throw themselves from buildings. And there may be heterogeneity in when post-partum psychosis presents. There's not a big literature base. One of the psychiatrists in the Clancy case said she'd never treated a patient with it. You may be confusing Lindsay with Chris Watts.
Drugs wipe out the glands in the brain, which contribute to thinking, logic, learning, memory, emotional development, behavior and more. Doctors don't study nutrition and what happens, when food or substances enter into the bloodstream, through ingestion or injection. The bloodstream carries the substances in them through the entire body...and into the brain. The bloodstream is designed to carry nutrients to NOURISH the organs, glands and cells. Drugs do not nourish, they are toxic and will harm the glands and organs.. They negatively impact the glands in the brain causing brain-damage. In the last 75 years, people started going regularly to doctors for drugs and vaccines. The mental and physical health of the American people has declined greatly. America used to be #1 in World health. it is now in 47th Place. What can be done with someone who was put on many drugs, which creates brain-damage? Someone who has killed her own children. Lindsey can not be loosed in society. However, society is also to blame for promoting toxic drugs.
Perhaps a new law might change the tide: prescriber of known psych meds shall be seated beside the defendant as a codefendant in such cases.
Mandatory Third Party Testing from without the industry was not done with vaccines...and most likely not with drugs. Little pamphlets which come with drugs show side effects, but doctors don't make a big deal about them. Many patients don't even read the information. Prescribers should be held responsible too.
She murdered her three precious children. Even worse is the thought that the remaining two witnessed the death of their siblings. It is all too horrible to even think about. She was lucid enough to seek help and take all those medicines and make plans to return to work and give her nanny instructions. If she truly had those urges while on Earth didn't she ask someone to come take care of the babies to protect them. She is a murderer. The medical system is a disaster anyway especially the psychiatric system. She should have been smart enough to know that. But God forbid if she had returned to the Maternity Ward to work. What Horrors would she have committed there
She asked her mother to stay with them but she must not have stayed too long.