Lindsay Clancy : What Is She? Under the Tudorscope
Lindsay Clancy’s trial has ended in a mistrial, yet the question remains what drove her to murder her three children? Was it postpartum psychosis or something else, something embedded in her personality? Time to find out.
150 thoughts on “Lindsay Clancy : What Is She? Under the Tudorscope”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Thank you HG, it’s interesting to know that disorders can erode someone’s empathy. Letby was cold and calculated Narcissist but Clancy was a disordered normal it really makes sense. You make it so easy to understand. Thanks HG
Did anyone see Patrick Clancy’s interview on 60 minutes? His grief appeared genuine to me. Is that my emotional thinking tricking me? His new wife appeared to have a 404 moment. It was painful to watch. When Patrick was asked if Lindsay ever apologized to him, he had no. Why not? Why hasn’t she at least apologized to him for taking his children away from him.
Mr. Tudor,
Are you considering putting Patrick Clancy under the Tudorscope?
I have no immediate plans to do so.
Oh, I’m especially looking forward to the next part of the conclusion!!!!!
I was listening to the conclusion, completely riveted, and you ended on a cliff hanger…I should have anticipated that.
Dani,
The full conclusion (a detail-filled 1hr. 20 minutes!!) is available in the membership section. I listened with an earbud hidden under my hair, so I could keep listening until the end, once arriving at work.
Definitely worth it!!
Although, it made me quite sad while at work. So, I had to keep my tears under wraps as well.
Hi 1WhoCares,
I saw that after my tiny pout, and by the time that was sent and back to YouTube, Part 2 was out. I enjoyed the seven parts…I got to hit thumbs up six more times than I anticipated in such rapid succession.
Thank you for the whole conclusion in one day, sir. And I think people could learn a lot listening to and considering how different Clancy is from Letby.
I’m curious. I know Depp v Heard was a civil case and there are different burdens of proof. But one of the lawyers in Depp’s case said something like…”If there is one part of this story that you don’t believe (Amber gave them many options), you can decide everything was a lie.”
1. How do empaths vary in how they view the probable lie about post partum psychosis?
2. If they were in the deliberations, how would one big lie impact the rest of their interpretation?
3. Which narcissistic traits or special traits in an empath would harden them most against someone for a single lie in this horrendous context?
4. Would a narcissist who believed that she was lying about the psychosis be experiencing a threat to control that would partly drive their tenacity to hold out or would it be more the negative fuel from the rest of the jury?
Thank you so much, sir. I always appreciate you laying all the evidence out.
Hello, this week I mentioned a ‘loved one’ who was incarcerated for some quite serious offences, some worse than others, in a short period of time.
He was recently moved on remand, from a s__ hole, dangerous prison to a secure hospital, which is quite a rare thing. He was genuinely ill enough to be moved.
Funnily enough, he had his trial this week and the jury unanimously found him not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Next steps to be determined by judge in November.
This is a rare verdict in the UK, according to his brothers, but I gather they have this on authority. Three psychiatrists agree that he has schizoaffective disorder and suffered a serious psychotic episode, whereby he truly did not think his crimes were wrong. The prosecution questioned the fact he was able to tend to self care, do DIY for his mum, take the dog for a walk, communicate so nobody really noticed, etc. His main psychiatrist, who works for the prison, has specialism in meth induced psychosis. She said she sees prisoners pretending to be insane every day and she could unequivocally state that *X* as I’ll call him, was definitely acting from insanity, even though drugs had been taken. She and the other psychiatrists argued that it is absolutely possible to mask the troubling thoughts/voices/beliefs, perform daily tasks, even plan the crimes, whilst under psychosis. A drug induced psychosis tends to be acute. Psychosis from chronic/genuine mental illness tends to come on and escalate over time. X was living in great fear for a period of time, he really did believe his delusions and believed his crimes were on the right side of the law and was very confused when arrested, because he really did believe he was helping them. He has later said his thoughts seemed so shameful that he could not share them fully to his family and friends.
I have known X since he was born. He has always been a little different in a somewhat detached, shy, smiley kind of way. He is not aggressive or militant by nature. I know his behaviour and deluded beliefs were not normal, were not him.
The verdict is a major relief. The way he is being described by the media, even post verdict, is not a fair angle and seems to be baiting division and ire. He was still deluded when on anti psychotics in prison. He’s currently medicated up to the eyeballs and his brother says he’s flat, with occasional sparks of the old *X*. I just want to share this for obvious reasons.
Hi Mari,
When you mentioned your family member on the Questioning Me thread, I had responded. But I don’t know if you saw it.
I don’t doubt that psychosis or mental illness can cause delusions & sometimes those delusions can take us down the wrong path. My mother & brother both suffered from delusions & both were diagnosed were schizoaffective disorder. I have a second brother who also suffers from mental illness but he’s never been formally diagnosed. I remember when I got a phone call from the FBI about my undiagnosed brother. I told them he suffers from mental illness. I was nervous for him.
This case was very difficult for me to reconcile. How does a mother do that to her children? Mr. Tudor has now supplied us with that answer.
Please don’t take my cynicism and stubborness personally. I can be rigid in my thinking. I am trying to be more open minded though.
I’m pleased to hear that your family members court date went well. I hope he gets the help he needs.
hello, dear leigh! i didn’t know my comment about my ‘loved one’ had been published. it would have been circumspect to hold back on that, but it was fresh news. i learnt the verdict on friday from one brother and spoke to his other brother on sunday. that conversation finished with a discussion about the deeper crime that is matcha.
leigh, i will not take blog discussions or similar, personally. you are completely within your rights to think and speak as you are. from what i’ve read about your familial experiences, i can say they sound blooming awful. you had to survive that and some of it might shape the way you are. some of the other stories shared by readers, even Z’s recent comment about her own postpartum issues, inform me of how much other Tudorites have endured. you’re a hardy bunch, i doff my cap.
in my opinion, you do not need to reconcile anything about the LC story.
as i’ve said before, i’d usually swerve involvement in such highly televised and dramatic cases. an arrow hit me in the area of, ‘what if she actually was mentally ill and has the right to some balanced, impartial understanding?’ in contrast to the knee jerk, subjective responses of either ‘side’. i’ve also said before, that i only pursued that, when i’d decided she was not an absolute write-off scroat, as per the evidence.
i appreciate your interactions, i don’t mind what any of you say really! if i stick me neck out, i can expect responses 😀
Hi Mari,
I know my big mouth sometimes offends people. I’m glad I didn’t offend you.
As for my childhood, I have a bizarre feeling about it. It doesn’t feel awful to me. Neither does my life wuth my narc husband. Some people use the word misery to describe it. I don’t experience misery. I don’t think its because I’m numb. That’s something I considered. But I experience elation. I just don’t experience misery or hatred.
Ugh! My thoughts ran away from me!
Thank you forv your understanding! I appreciate it.
Bonjour Leigh,
I considered I might sound presumptuous about your ‘blooming awful’ experiences. Perhaps isolated descriptions of an event, person or issue, sound more severe than the whole picture. Not just in terms of your own background, but anybody’s.
In terms of your ‘big mouth’, ‘cynicism’, ‘stubbornness’ and what you said when I mentioned my insane criminal connection: I don’t think I have seen it. If I come across that, we might need to reassess 😀
I’m joking of course – even if something stings, I will not take it personally. Especially on HG’s blog, people have intelligence and we come from a variety of angles. X
Hi Mari,
You’re not the only who has said that my childhood sounds awful. It certainly wasn’t good but I know people have experienced worse. Honestly, I think its my pride that doesn’t let me think it was that bad.
When I brought up my cynicism & stubbornness, it was in regards to Clancy. I felt like I might’ve been pushing my cynical view of her on you & not being open minded enough to hear your view. I probably was overthinking that a little bit.
I enjoy reading your comments and your opinions. Plus I think you’re a hoot and a half! Lol!
Hi Mari
The blog it’s a powerful place. It causes us to overshare. Ugh! Lol! Don’t feel bad about over sharing. I do it all the time!
I had a bad reaction to weed. I was about 17 at the time. It made me incredibly paranoid. I thought someone laced it with something. That’s the extent of my drug use.
I drank like a fish though and had blackouts all the time. I even got behind the wheel of a car during a blackout. Thankfully I didn’t hurt anyone. That stopped me from drinking & driving. Sadly it didn’t stop me from drinking though. I’m sober now but it took me years to get to sobriety.
There’s so many external factors that can affect our thoughts or how we perceive things. I know for me, I can struggle with cognitive dissonance. When I know somethings wrong & I ignore it or excuse it, it screws with my head.
I’m sorry to hear you were having some trouble. I remember how upsetting the situation was with Biscuit Bloke. It might not have been about him but it could’ve still affected you. He definitely crossed some serious boundaries. The way he died was also very scary and nerve wracking.
I hope you’re feeling better now.
Hello Leigh, thank you for your last replies. I gathered the ‘cynicism and stubbornness’ was about LC. I mean, I can understand why!
Well done for sorting sobriety, Leigh.
Thank you for your kind words. ‘Hoot and a half’ – I’ve never been called that before! The place I’ve moved to has at least two tawny owls, who call and hoot one another in the middle of the night. If the window’s open it sounds like they’re right outside. Now that’s a hoot and a half, I love it : )
Hi Mari,
What a coinkydink that you have owls near you hooting in the middle of the night
Hoot and a half is just a friendly expression to say you find someone funny & entertaining. That’s not to say I don’t find your comments interesting too. Some of your comments are hilarious though!
Hi Mari,
Thank you for sharing this.
I’ve tried to imagine how being delusional actually feels and I think it’s one of those things that unless you have experienced it, it’s very difficult to understand. If you think about how someone might describe a psychedelic experience, they might tell you what they saw but that doesn’t really describe the breadth and depth of the experience itself. You have to have taken the drug to fully understand.
Emotional Thinking might be another example. It’s difficult to describe how that actually feels too, it feels different for each person. Some of us make crazy decisions, some less so, but all experience flawed decision making.
Mental illness awareness has increased but that doesn’t automatically mean that understanding of how it actually feels has increased.
The closest I’ve come to delusion is hallucination. I was given steroids for a chest infection after having my first child. I woke up to feed, turned on the light and the changing table was dancing, it had a face and everything! I knew it was a hallucination, that’s the difference, I knew it was due to the steroid ( I don’t do well with any meds) so it’s different, I knew what was happening wasn’t real and I didn’t believe what I was seeing.
Delusions must be scary because the person truly believes that one aspect. A person might go about their daily life but still be delusional. People often believe they can fly, that’s a common delusion. So they jump off a balcony for example. When they walk to the edge they know they are walking to the edge, they know they are going to jump, so it’s intentional. The issue is they believe it’s ok to jump, because they can fly. That’s the way I think about it. I don’t think intent is as straightforward as it seems. Mental health issues are difficult to grasp and imagine.
Hello TS, thank you very much for your insights.
I’ve had experience of late, witnessing various types of delusion in others, for different reasons. One of the biggies I’d not known about is delirium, particularly during and after hospitalisation. It can take 18 months to end!
I’ve dabbled a little with psychedelics in my youth. A bit like your steroid experience, at least I knew I was hallucinating because of the substance I’d taken. The difference of course, was I intended to hallucinate (WHY?!) but your intention was to relieve your chest infection after child birth.
The only time I took mushroom tea, I was removed from the party by my boyfriend at the time, taken to the basement and reprimanded for doing everyone’s heads in. I kept doing Sybil Fawlty impressions and thought I was very funny. I remember feeling very confused and misunderstood when he was complaining.
He dressed me in oversized walking gear & wellies and took me out to the woods on the grounds! What a horrid experience, I’m still humiliated by it. 😀 Needless to say, the woods were alive and did not feel benevolent that night. I didn’t enjoy hallucinating, nor the biological sensations I got. I, too, wonder how it feels for people experiencing delusion. I’d guess it’s different for each person, but how different?
Emotional thinking: now there’s a curveball. What can I say? Good point, interesting comparison. Delusion Lite sometimes?
“Delusions must be scary because the person truly believes that one aspect” – this is something I’ve come to understand.
To boot, a little while after my bizarre neighbour had a tea party in my house last year, I begun to experience what I thought might be pre-psychosis’, so I was looking into that. I noticed my perception going a bit wayward about one particular thing. Not about the neighbour. I’m fortunate I was aware I might be losing my grip a bit. I was fortunate to stay on top of it and have a sense of humour about it. I don’t do medication. I shared my beliefs with my lover, who did not live close by. I said, watch me, if i start going weird, don’t be shy about telling me. Well, weirder :D.
I still don’t know if my thoughts and beliefs were correct or veering into delusion. Just that brush with what *might* have been a slide, brought insight: how easy it could be for anyone to lose their centre. I have had weighty external stressors in recent years, plus I really did not like my street or my house – I’ve moved now – plus my neurology is sensitive so I can understand how chronic stress might contribute to bad mental health, including delusion, psychosis.
My neighbour had lost his centre, was definitely delusional, but he was also a dodgy bean. I suspect he was a lesser narcissist as well as having sociopathic traits. He’d used plenty of hard drugs in the past. His woman, who died a year prior, used to go out in a taxi and pick up black market prescription drugs for one thing. He never went, so I wonder if he was lost without her doing everything for him, as I suspect she did.
The taxi driver in question told me that part! I suspect he’s a narcissist or narcissistic too, as I’ve had the displeasure of his services twice.
In conclusion…errr…something about delusion. 😀
Hello Mari:
Here’s a question: what about the responsibility of the doctors and big pharma for the deaths? Michael Jackson wanted to sleep, a doctor finds a way, Jackson dies.
These drugs have side effects. Was it a proper combination? Should there have been safeguard or supervision under the facts? Were 13 pills necessary?
And was there no moment that Clancy felt- hey I am losing my mind. Call 911! Before she lost her mind?
I myself have seen friends who had no prior addictions, get a surgery, get pain meds and get hooked. I find many doctors solve everything with a pill today. And sometimes wait until there is a bad reaction then they try another pill.
Myself? I am not one to take pills. When I was in childbirth and induced, I refused an epidermal because it goes to the child. My child was fine but I suffered 17 hours hard labor. When a car crashed into me, I saw a doctor who offered pain meds. I said no thank you. She insisted and gave me the bottle and told me to take them. They remained untouched. That’s just me but I wonder about these doctors after listening to HGs conclusion…. My two cents.
Maybe I gave myself un-needed pain but if you are uncomfortable with a doctor, get a second opinion. Ever notice how often doctors disagree with each other on an approach?
Contagious, I am with you, drugs I don’t like that, give me natural herbs. Xx
Yes nothing like a huge parsley blunt or a thyme doobie.
Dear HG,
That is not how you take that…😄😄😄xx
The children are dead in the ground. She is responsible for that.
Hi Contagious, Rebecca, HG – but what IS thyme, maaaan? Are you going to Scarborough Fair?
Contagious, thank you for that. I say, don’t get me started on all that.
I have many issues with the cult of allopathic medicine, irresponsible doctors, irresponsible/stupid/totally brainwashed or vulnerable patients, but to a degree I’ll say these days: ‘Whatever gets you through the night.’
I think it’s a big shame that Lyndsay Clancy apparently trusted doctors and meds so much, she was persistant and kept on asking them for help and something to ease her distress. Now, that might be a case where I’d say, whatever gets you through the night, but sadly it didn’t. Could that case have ended any less dreadfully if she had not taken meds and gone to various docs? Tricky. Michael Jackson seemed to be such a hot mess I’m not sure he would have survived either, whether he took pills or not.
If he could not sort himself out, something was too deeply broken maybe? Why was he not sleeping? Treat the cause not the symptom if possible, perhaps helping the most acute symptoms with meds if needs be.
I’m also not sure what to believe with big cases.
On balance, there are some excellent people in allopathic healthcare, of course. Intelligent, empathic, responsible and interested in health over money – or as well as money.
There’s a place, sometimes, for allopathic or synthetic medications for those who choose it. I don’t choose it, but one day I might say, ‘Gimme the drugs!’
However, if neither doctor nor patient can behave properly and take responsibility, we have a problem. The issue with addiction to opioids, starting with pain relief after a crash or something, is well documented. I also have a friend who became hooked – worked for TfL, fell backwards over a railing on a bus and broke his back, got addicted to opioids but had the mettle to pull himself back together. He lives in the States now!
Hi Mari,
Haha! Where did you pull Sybil Fawlty from?! Oh you poor thing, I can just imagine “ Now I have to take you outside, because you’re annoying everyone.”
“Whohkay.” 😔
I’ve never dared mess with drugs because I know how sensitive I am with chemicals. I tried weed a few times but I don’t think that counts. It works when I mix it with alcohol which you aren’t supposed to do, but on its own I either get lost or get stuck to the couch and can’t move. Waste of my hard earned cash!
One thing I would be very curious to try though, DMT. The thing that worries me about that is that I’d be so interested in talking to the various entities I might decide to stay, locked in my own mind. I’d need someone with me watching, to command me back (don’t ask me, tell me) and even then, I’d likely just get stubborn and stay anyway.
I find that whole DMT concept fascinating. I think it likely opens a direct route to your subconscious mind. I don’t think it opens another realm as some seem to think. The fact that people see very similar entities is likely due to cultural influences that filter down into the subconscious without us realising. Fairy tales, folk tales, movies, travel, images and legends we just absorb without realising. That would account for the similarities or at least in part. If you do it too often apparently you don’t get past the waiting room. That sounds like the subconscious putting the breaks on to me.
The experience you describe with your neighbour, not liking the street you live on, feeling like you were slipping mentally, I wonder if that might have been hyper vigilance, a response to feeling threatened / generally unsafe in your own space. I think that’s worse than feeling unsafe when you are out somewhere. Your own space is supposed to be safe, if that idea is questioned then I think it’s understandable you would feel very on edge/ not yourself.
I know what you mean, to not know exactly where you are up to mentally, that must be scary. A bit like someone telling you, “Don’t trust your own instincts, they’re faulty just now.” Very destabilising. I agree, feeling centred, yes I get that.
Where were we again?
Truthspliffer.
Dear TS,
Bless your heart for responding to that lot and thank you HG for posting it. I was mainly wanting to say, I can begin to understand how it might feel to be losing it or have delusions, and how easy it could be to lose it and not have a forewarning.
Sybil Fawlty? No idea where she came from, I don’t recall inviting her. I JUST this moment had a flashback of me repeating, ‘It’s a tissue!’ in the voice of Lloyd Grossman as well, then dying laughing. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Everyone was considerably older than me as well. I’ve taken LSD a few times, but only once the mushrooms. It was all very unnecessary and jarring, albeit very funny at times. I too am sensitive to such things. The last ever time was alone at Virginia Water lake and a real life swan pursued me for my sandwich. I thought, ‘It knows and it’s taking advantage!’ I said to a walker, ‘I’ve found a friend!’ as it waddled after me, chest puffed out. I gave it Sandwich and made haste.
I did consider the pre-psychosis scare might have been hyper vigilance or similar, yeh. Thanks for your understanding!
Now then, I think weed counts. That can do some crazy stuff to minds.
Oh my word, I would not do DMT or ayahuasca (hallucinate AND group vomit with a bunch of potential arses in a tent in the middle of nowhere, for Lord knows how many pounds stirling? No ta.) I understand many people report beneficial experiences, breaking through mega blockages and hardened parts of the self, rather than being tipped into prolonged delusion or acute distress. I like to think you’d have somebody with you, TS, if you ever do it!
I agree it’s feasible that DMT opens a chute to the subconscious. The collective visions, relating to cultural influences is interesting…my mind’s bending around now! Got any gum?
Truthspliffer?
Once I finish this bowl of popcorn and packet of KitKats I’ll try to think of a suitably witty response!
Munchies-seeker.
Hi Mari,
I keep thinking about Sybil. Such a strange character to pull forward. She at first seems so incongruous with what was happening at that time. I don’t think she was incongruous. If I had to select one word to describe her character I’d say “disapproving”. Maybe what you had taken made the ‘membrane’ between your conscious and subconscious mind much thinner, so information passed more efficiently between the two. Your subconscious mind sensed your boyfriend’s disapproval far earlier than your conscious mind. It can’t readily use words to communicate so it presents a character synonymous with disapproval. Sybil. Your conscious mind hears Sybil but fails to translate the reference so you start impersonating her rather than listening to the message.
I do think that the subconscious communicates via images and stored reference points. It happens to me quite a lot. I can be in conversation and a song pops into my head or, a movie character, even a specific movie scene. That’s the subconscious reading ahead of the conscious mind I think. It’s probably a large part of what people refer to as intuition. If you trust your intuition you are simply more accepting of what is presented by your subconscious.
See why I need the commanding presence? I could remain stuck in my own mind for ages!
Oh definitely, paying an arm and a leg to sit in a smelly tent with people I don’t know whilst trying DMT is not my idea of fun. If I was going to do it, I’d go private!
Can’t help you with the swan episode I’m afraid. “ I gave it Sandwich and made haste.” Haha!
“Munchies Seeker”
Ya ya ya ya, what do you have?
Dear TS, I like the way your mind works. I feel a bit sheepish you’ve been thinking of my Sybil Fawlty v’s Liberty Cap persona. It could be that I’m just a bit Radio Rental. I adore the characters of Fawlty Towers, so it’s normal for me to reference them at times. You’ve given me food for thought though – I’ve never wondered WHY Sybil came up. Lloyd Grossman as well! I’m quite amazed at your theory.
It might clarify things, if I say I was doing her awful laugh and her telephone voice in response to people: ‘Oooh, I knoooow!’ And possibly a few barks of ‘BASIL!’ not sure. The laugh must have been really irritating, especially if others did not know I was ‘being Sybil’. Something must have brought her up, as you infer. Coping? Subconsciously trying to provoke them ‘cos they were a bit serious generally? Trying to get attention? So weird.
I did not care who cared, until I got ‘fish-slapped’ by my boyfriend and taken away.
I think I was in the wrong company, i.e., not on my own hahaha – no I mean they were incompatible and more seasoned. Top people, but not kindred spirits.
The ayahuasca ceremonies are sicking up in a tent, I think DMT is more of a private thing. I am in full accord: you need a commanding presence, just to keep you on track. Maybe not NEED, but why not? Just for assurance. Do you have anyone in mind? 😉Not that i think you even ‘need’ to try DMT!
I see HG (hello HG) has been speaking of the delusion of the narcissist in his recent vids. Good call!
Hi Mari,
Haha! Lloyd Grossman “Who lives, in a house like this?” Maybe?
I think we are just missing a bench, then we can sit next to each other and assume the roles completely!
From what you have said it sounds like you felt out of place. Maybe a coping thing, maybe over compensating? I remember the first time a partner took me up to Glasgow to meet his friends. They had studied together at Strathclyde doing their MBA’s. The four of them had worked together on team projects, all competitive, all did extremely well. I was very nervous about meeting them, I don’t have an MBA so felt a little wrong footed. I was 8-10 years younger with far less work experience and they earned a lot more than me. I’m reasonably confident, I can hold my own in conversation so it wasn’t just that, it was more that I knew these friends were important to him, they mattered to him, so I wanted them to like me, or at least, not dislike me. I drank way too much way too fast. That, with the nerves meant it hit my system like a train. I was horrendously, embarrassingly, out of it drunk. I threw up in the toilets at the bar, I managed not to throw up in the taxi. I threw up when we got back to the house we were staying in and then I went to sleep.
They bloody loved me. Haha! Big drinkers.
Similar thing to what you describe, different drug. I’d like to say I did Sybil impressions but I honestly can’t remember what I did, apart from the throwing up part. I cry every time I’m sick as well haha!
Thank you for the compliment about the way my mind works. I think “Why?” will probably be on my tombstone. I also think that a lot of us here have been made to feel odd, or wrong, or bad, or crazy or whatever it was that worked for our respective narcs at any given time. There are many shades of normal so I’m quite accepting of my quirks these days.
In terms of our subconscious and it playing a part in intuition, I think patterning has a lot to do with it too. We find ourselves in a situation or in conversation with someone and I think our subconscious runs through our directory to see if it can put a label on it, can recognise it. I don’t think that’s such a stretch, the subconscious mind makes all kinds of calculations every day, from swinging a bat through to being attracted to a potential partner, the latter is calculated within seconds of meeting. We don’t question how we calculated the swing to hit the ball, or what combination of pheromones, words, visual cues and micro expressions combined to make a person attractive. I see intuition very similarly, a set of calculations run in the background that provide a result in a language we need to learn to interpret.
In terms of the commanding presence. I know I need one to feel relaxed in that situation, but I also have trust issues. I trust myself and that’s about it, so I find myself in a pickle there. I see why you suggest HG. The commanding part would work but I think he might get bored. I’d be trapped talking to Anubis and he’d be …. gone, about other things!
Dear TS, thanks for sharing your story and further insights. I was in the middle of jotting a nice reply, but it’s disappeared. I’ll stubbornly persist, but it’ll have to be shorter. (It is not shorter)
If I can pick up a bench for the Sybil-Grossman role play I’ll bring it here, OK?
Sounds like you SMASHED your boyfriend’s Friend Meeting, you just don’t remember. Aw, crying when sick 🤗
My mushroom boyf was 8 years older than me, too.
I wonder if empaths have more tendency to call themselves crazy and such, because of the self awareness? Plus the effect of abuse on our sensitive natures, as you mentioned. I see the majority of humans as mad, so I feel it’s only right and just to see that in myself, when it’s applicable. That’s mostly tongue in cheek for me, I know some do more damage with self recrimination.
On intuition: I appreciate your musings, I will probably re-read both parts. They seem credible to me, but my neuro-response is mind-splat: I can’t go too ‘mental’ about intuition. I mean, I probably could but my intuition says, ‘Not at the moment.’ Haha. I don’t mean your theory is mind-splat, but my own mind splatted.
Hey – I never said HG for DMT sitter – but yes, yes, your inference was correct. It’s word association: you say, ‘Commanding presence’ whilst on his blog and I say, ‘That sounds like someone not far from here’.
In reality I’m guessing HG’d not be able to do it, but in theory, HG might be curious enough about your DMT experience to stick around and see what you made of it! At least it doesn’t last long, unlike other modes. You’d need evidence it’s Anubis though…
Hi Mari,
I’m not sure if it’s awareness that causes us to think we’re crazy, it might be. Do you mean self awareness? We seem to notice things others don’t or feel things differently, so we realise we are different from the norm?
I agree most people have something going on with them, that’s probably why most people can be manipulated. Unless they are full on cray cray, then I suppose they’re immune.
I think many of us introspect quite a lot. That might be part of it too. Maybe we should adopt the way of the narcissist. No introspection, then we could say whatever we want to, safe in the knowledge that there’s ‘nothing to see here!’
Hi Mari,
I didnt play with drugs when I was a teen or a young adult, I saw too many of my friends in rehab as a teen, to even think seriously about taking any trippy drug. I don’t even like taking advil because it messes with my stomach. I have a sensitive system and I respect it, even as a teen, IDGF what others were trying, I wasn’t going to try it too. I was too stubborn to follow them blindly and I am glad because too many of my friends paid for it, they either went to rehab, or got raped, or both. I wanted no part of that. That didnt look like fun to me and I am sorry to be so serious, but I stopped taking the nerve blockers 5 days after my breast surgeries for breast cancer treatment and I took advil for pain, but then had to take dolcolax for the stomach issues….drugs suck, take one, just to need that for this side effect…glad I am off all of that shit…I take natural herbs that have been proven to work, like soursop tea…natural herbs that don’t mess up my mind or body. Xx
Very sensible.
Nothing but ibogaine and ‘shrooms for me!
Hey Rebecca, thank you for sharing your thoughts – I am glad you respected your sensitive self and did not do the druggies. Am sorry your friends went so far.
No need to say sorry for being serious, it’s quite a serious topic, especially with your current health and healing. I mainly brought it up in relation to delusion, TS experiencing hallucination on medication and trying to relate to how it might feel for someone suffering from delusion. I used to be careful and had some fun times, but not everybody is that fortunate.
I’m also glad to hear you’re taking healing herbs now. I use herbs, but I’ve never heard of soursop tea!
Very California lol. We love our herbs!
I once went to a Dead concert and it was hot outside. A woman asked me if I wanted an ice cube. I said “ yes.” There was this little colorful tablet on it. I didn’t know. I wasn’t holding up my index finger looking for a miracle ( Dead head reference for tripping). It was LSD.
I ended up sitting in front of the lights up front and it was the best light show I ever saw. I lost everyone and was the last person there after the show. I made it to a taxi and a friends. My experience… lol
Hi Mari,
Soursop tea is made from a fruit and it helps fight cancer from coming back, so does Green tea, matcha tea, dandelion root tea, tulsi tea, some veggies and other fruits like; onions, broccoli, carrots, blueberries, pineapples, blackberries, and dates. Also, getting 8 hours of sleep keeps your body healthy, exercising daily keeps the recurrence score down, anything and everything that improves the body’s health, lowers recuurence score and keeps that gremlin gone….Salmon and tuna also helps fight cancer, forgot to mention the only two meats I eat.
You can google soursop tea and the benefits of taking it, but not to be consumed every day because some people can be senstive to it, so I drink it 3 times a week. I drink more green tea with a little cinnamon, and ginger tea and matcha tea. Xx
Hi Contagious,
You are very lucky no one took advantage of you, during the concert, or that you didn’t go missing…I was worried about such things, while in the grasp of a drug, another reason I didn’t do them…too risky for what might happen to me, while taking them…I didn’t have a mind of a teenager, when I was a teenager, I was raised by a LMRVNarcissist and my mind was alert to possible dangers and real now dangers, and drugs were a big red flag for me. I also stayed away from alcohol for the same reasons…that and I tried it once at a wedding and it tasted like cough medicine. Yuck! People get drunk off this nasty tasting stuff? Yuck! I had the mind of an over cautious adult because I lived in chaos, a mine field of punishment and consequences, so drugs and alcohol were too risky in my mind. Xx
There is something I’d like to say about the legal process that I suspect will not be very popular.
After the commentary here about Lindsay Clancy, and also the commentary under the posts about Sam Vaknin, I think that the legal process, and the way the ‘justice system’ operates, does not effectively address some very pertinent aspects of human behaviour.
Frankly, sometimes it makes the ‘injustices’ even worse.
In the case of Lindsay Clancy, I think there are a number of points of ‘behaviour’ that lie between the extremes of ‘wonderful mother’ and ‘psychosis’.
What if she regularly became frustrated and her frustration reached a point of cold fury she could no longer contain? What if the various medications she was taking exacerbated her frustration and emotional reactivity? What if her need to present a perfect family image to the outside world became too difficult?
How does the ‘legal system’ prove that?
The legal defence of ‘insanity’ is at the far end of the spectrum of ‘human behaviour’.
There are many points on the spectrum that could have been relevant before LC’s situation became one of ‘insanity’ by reason of ‘psychosis’.
The claim that she ‘heard a voice’ that told her to kill the children even though she never heard this voice before or after the fateful day is suspicious. Personally, I don’t buy it. I think it’s possible that it’s a story fabricated in order to substantiate the legal defence of ‘insanity’.
I understand that a ‘presumption of innocence’ is required and that the onus is on the prosecution to ‘prove’ guilt.
On the other hand, I think that jurors being ‘forced’ to reach a verdict of ‘not guilty’ when they have ‘reasonable doubt’ is an ineffective way to protect the public, prevent potential crimes, or to provide genuine ‘justice’.
Indeed that is why you see the differences that relate to mitigation (I’m guilty but be gentle in punishing me) and a defence (I’m not guilty). Some jurisdictions don’t allow the accused’s circumstances to afford them a defence which is why certain accused will bend the facts to try and get under the protection of a defence otherwise their circumstances amount solely to mitigation.
Thank you for explaining, HG.
To be honest, my head swims while considering all the various rules and clauses in the legal system, which are further complicated by differences according to jurisdictions. It seems like a minefield.
You are welcome.
“On the other hand, I think that jurors being ‘forced’ to reach a verdict of ‘not guilty’ when they have ‘reasonable doubt’ is an ineffective way to protect the public, prevent potential crimes, or to provide genuine ‘justice’.”
If you want the rules tightened up so juries can have doubt and still reach a guilty verdict there’s going to be more innocent people convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Is that okay with you? Some would say that’s not an acceptable trade off.
Hi AA,
There is room for legal rules to change and it doesn’t necessarily have to mean a change to the way juries can or can’t have doubt.
I think the current system where jury members can be vetted and selected in ways that mean they are more likely to be sympathetic, or to side with the defendant, has room for change.
I also think that defense lawyers becoming ‘good friends’ with the defendant and the defendant’s family is also questionable. I think independence and detachment is preferable.
The deliberately manipulative way Kevin Reddington was describing LC as a ‘poor kid’ etc, and making her sound like a saint because she turned up every day to her own trial, etc, was pathetic. It was gaslighting. She murdered her three children.
The theatrics and image-creation of Kevin Reddington, which the jury lapped up, was also pathetic.
If I was a juror and Kevin Reddington was bignoting his client or treating her like a princess who needed pity, it would make me think the trial was a farce. I’d think that he thought he was so great that it was a done deal because in his estimation, the jury members were morons he could easily manipulate.
When it comes to the media being involved in legal trials, I think there should be some tighter rules around that. Jurors shouldn’t be allowed to speak about the trials afterwards on prime-time TV, for example. There should be rules about privacy when it comes to jurors and what their individual decisions were.
To be honest, I don’t care that the holdout juror didn’t strictly follow the rules of ‘not guilty if there is reasonable doubt’ in this specific case. To me, I think he did the right thing. He stood his ground based on his personal opinion after seeing all the so-called evidence.
Post partum depression and psychosis that wasn’t apparent until five months after birth? Hearing a voice on only one occasion telling her to kill her children? Planning to do it before orchestrating her husband to be out of the house? Going through with each murder -*three* times – one after the other with each one taking at least four minutes?
This was the evidence presented to the jury. It didn’t cut the mustard with the holdout juror and I’m glad it didn’t.
Hi WN
From what I can understand, you think needs the legal system needs radical reform – and you believe this reform is needed because it’s too evidence based and needs more decision making based on morality, perhaps on gut instinct as to whether something is right or wrong.
But earlier on in this thread, you say the following:
“My thinking was that Z would probably react to my comment by thinking it was argumentative or that I was giving her a lecture, etc. After being on the blog for a while, I’ve had my fair share of pushback when saying something contradictory or when raising a point that others disagree with. For example, I’ve been told I need to “use honey” in my interactions, or I’ve been accused of being passive-aggressive, etc”
I gather you don’t think you had been argumentative or giving her a lecture, but that it might be read that way and because of that (innacurate) interpretation you’d get pushback that you didn’t really deserve. You say you’ve been ‘accused’ of being passive aggresssive, suggesting there has been, in the past, inaccurate assessments of your behaviour.
Your implication appears to be that readers on the blog have at times jumped to conclusions about you and comments you’ve made, have relied heavily on assumptions and personal opinion and judged you unfairly without accurately gauging all the facts. If Z had said she felt you’d been harsh and said your explanation about your purposes was irrelevant to her and she wasn’t going to consider it because her feelings were enough, would that have seemed unfair to you?
Should people on the blog be able to judge you on what they feel? If they feel you’ve transgressed, based on their personal ethical framework, should you be considered guilty? Should people who are personable or charming get away with a lot (because they generate positive feelings in others)? Should people who rub others the wrong way get away with very little?
To me this does not seem a satisfactory way to execute justice.
Hello AA,
One of my comments about ‘moral views’ is still in moderation.
In this comment that’s not published yet, I have said more about what I meant when commenting about ‘left-brain’ and ‘right-brain’ thinking in relation to so-called ‘moral’ views.
I would like to wait for the comment in moderation to be published before I respond to your comment here.
Hello AA,
“From what I can understand, you think the legal system needs radical reform”
Your understanding is incorrect. I said there was “room for change”.
“you believe this reform is needed because it’s too evidence based and needs more decision making based on morality, perhaps on gut instinct as to whether something is right or wrong.”
Again, your assumption is incorrect. My mentions of morality and moral views had nothing to do with using morality instead of evidence in a court. Nothing whatsoever.
When I mentioned morality and moral views it was in relation to social norms and values in general. It had nothing to do with using morality or gut instinct in legal trials to decide right and wrong.
I said: “dependence on the legal system to ‘decide’ matters of social behaviour means that moral views are increasingly minimised and treated as ‘just opinions’.”
“My thinking was that Z would probably react to my comment by thinking it was argumentative or that I was giving her a lecture, etc
Correct.
The points you make in the rest of your comment are irrelevant. This is because you misunderstood what I meant when I mentioned moral views, left-brain thinking, right-brain thinking, social norms and values.
In short, aspects of life such as social norms, moral views, marriage, parenthood, family, and more besides, are not based on ‘left-brain thinking’ and ‘evidence’ alone.
Hi WM
It’s been a few days since your post from the 13th. What is your opinion now about the holdout juror? That juror seemed to use social norm/values/right brain thinking to reach their decision.
Hi WN
I’ll add that my comment was considering the other post you made. You said there:
“Morality’ or ‘moral views’ are not concrete and tangible. You can’t make an ‘exhibit’ of them in a legal trial and they carry no weight as factual evidence. This, I think, makes it sound like ‘morality’ is not as important as ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’. As a result, dependence on the legal system to ‘decide’ matters of social behaviour means that moral views are increasingly minimised and treated as ‘just opinions’. I think the view of ‘morality’ being like some afterthought or meaningless opinion is really dangerous. I’d go so far as to say that it erodes trust, and degrades human behaviour and social standards.”
and
“Morality and emotional responsiveness to situations is a right-brain, instinctual or spiritual way of thinking.
Evidence has its place, but there needs to be a balance. I think there needs to be more emphasis on a right-brain, spiritual way of thinking when it comes to ‘rules’ and ‘social norms’.”
Hi AA,
“That juror seemed to use social norm/values/right brain thinking to reach their decision.”
I would like to know how you have reached this assumption. What is the ‘evidence’ you have based this opinion on?
Personally, I don’t know what the holdout juror based his decision on or what his thinking process was before making the decision.
“What is your opinion now about the holdout juror?”
The publicity the trial has received and the fact that the trial has not been conclusive (i.e. it was declared a mistrial), is to my mind, an apt result.
I thought it was apt before I knew anything about postpartum psychosis (PPP).
Now that I know more about PPP and how it manifests, I also think that it is apt that the Lindsay Clancy trial was declared a mistrial.
When I compare the trial of Carol Coronado with the trial of Lindsay Clancy, the two trials were radically different even though the crimes were very similar.
Unlike LC, Carol’s socioeconomic situation was very different; she had received no medical care or mental health care; and her trial was decided by a judge rather than a jury.
During her trial, Carol’s mental health was visibly much worse than LC’s and she had psychotic episodes in the court room.
Despite the obvious state of her mental health, Carol Coronado was convicted in 2015 of three counts of first-degree murder. The judge presiding over the case sentenced her to three consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole.
Carol’s defense attorney appealed the initial conviction in 2018, however, a state appellate court panel denied the appeal and upheld her conviction.
As Carol Coronado’s defense attorney said in 2015 after her conviction, the judge “got it wrong” – and I agree with him. Considering her living conditions before she killed her children, her mental state, and her very obvious signs of psychosis, she did not deserve to be convicted of first-degree murder and to serve life in prison with no possibility of parole.
AA,
The commentary under this post in favour of ‘evidence’ and in favour of the legal principles and procedures has made it sound like the legal system and legal processes are objectively accurate and impartial across all crimes. This is simply not true.
There was no jury in Carol Coronado’s trial; there was only one judge – and he got it wrong.
Therefore, when I think about LC’s case ending in a mistrial because of the holdout juror, I think this has proven to be a blessing in disguise.
This is because it is not a clear-cut case and the controversy caused by the ‘mistrial’ outcome (which was caused by the holdout juror) has made the media and the public talk about it.
The holdout juror has thrown a spanner in the works of the ‘legal system’. As a result, questions about PPP and women’s health are now being asked by a wider range of people who are seeking answers and information.
The trial has unintentionally raised awareness about PPP and enabled education about the realities of childbirth and motherhood. I think this is a very beneficial outcome for the public in general.
And another thought: could she have both a personality disorder, for example narcissistic personality disorder, and postpartum depression at the same time?
These two conditions can, of course, coexist. In other words, she could have already had a personality disorder, and then developed postpartum depression on top of it.
She did have suicidal thoughts and all the other symptoms that have been described — anxiety, insomnia, and so on — but without psychotic symptoms.
And then there is this voice, which apparently appeared and then disappeared immediately after she had killed the children. All of this, of course, raises a lot of questions.
Of course, in psychiatry, in medicine, and probably in life in general, almost anything is possible. But still…
After listening to Part 4 of HG’s analysis of Lindsay Clancy, my thoughts are that there was something strange and dubious about her marriage to Patrick.
When people have the need to say “I love you” to each other repeatedly every day, it’s not actually ‘love’. It sounds like an act instead.
The more I see and hear about Patrick Clancy, the more red flags there are.
I watched about an hour of his court testimony and, to me, his responses came across as curt and minimal. His tone sounded prepared and a little combative, and his demeanour looked cagey. I’d say he was very controlled. At times, he looked contemptuous of the prosecuting attorney. At one point, he turned the questioning around so that he asked her a question in response to her question. It appeared he didn’t like or appreciate being questioned.
Also, on the subject of Lindsay and Patrick’s supposed ‘love’, when Patrick was questioned about the medication Lindsay had been prescribed, he consistently said he didn’t know or couldn’t remember what she was taking, how much, or when she had started taking it.
If they had been so close and so in love, professing their devotion five times a day, wouldn’t they have discussed important things like doctors’ consultations, prescriptions for mental health drugs, and when and how much medication Lindsay was taking?
Also, Patrick began dating a fertility doctor, Rachel Danis, almost exactly one year after his children were killed. He moved from Massachusetts to Manhattan, New York, about five months after the tragedy.
Rachel Danis looks a lot like Lindsay. If you see their photos side by side, they could be sisters.
I’ve read comments on Reddit saying that there’s nothing wrong with Patrick “moving on”, however, his three children were murdered by his former wife who he supposedly loved so, so much. His former dear life partner is paralysed and going through a huge trial that the whole world is watching.
To me, his “moving on” so quickly is very suspicious. In the past, it has taken me longer than a year to get over a relatively simple break-up, plus I wasn’t keen on rushing into a new relationship.
Patrick and Rachel have been seen out and about in New York acting like a young romantic couple. A few days after the mistrial was declared, Patrick was seen walking in the city and was snapped by paparazzi.
There is something not right about Patrick.
I find it unusual that he is so supportive and forgiving of the woman who killed his children although as I have explained I believe he has a vested interest in her insanity defence working as it will bolster the civil law suits. I think it would be entirely understandable for an individual to want to move on from his life being affected as it was by the death of his children.
When you say there is something not right about Patrick, what is that you actually want to suggest about him?
The main reason I think there is something not right is because if you truly love someone and you love your children and they are dear to you and you’ve seen their births, lived with them every day, know them intimately – then how can you just “move on” one year after such a tragedy and start again with a new woman like you’re changing a suit?
People say about Lindsay and Patrick, “they were a perfect family,” and “they were so close,” etc etc, – yet the reality of what has happened is so far removed from that.
The declarations of love and the photos of togetherness were paper-thin.
It makes me wonder what people are thinking when they talk about ‘love’.
It seems to me that it wasn’t true and genuine emotional connection, care and love.
Thank you for expanding.
You’re welcome, HG.
Further on this aspect, HG …
In your YT video called ‘Lindsay Clancy : The Patrick Clancy Affair’, you say:
“It is understandable that people will have a view and opinion about how quickly he started a new life. You may morally think that that’s reprehensible or inappropriate, but your moral view is not the same as evidence that he was unfaithful and having an affair whilst he was married to Lindsay Clancy.
In short, there’s no evidence to support an affair. Therefore, we cannot take that into account as a potential impact upon the behaviour of Lindsay Clancy.”
Firstly, the matter of Patrick having an affair while married isn’t what I based my earlier comment on. Rather than whether or not he had an affair while married, I was thinking of his general attitude and his involvement and attunement with Lindsay.
If we home in on your words …
“… your moral view is not the same as evidence … ”
… yes, that is true. ‘Morality’ or ‘moral views’ are not concrete and tangible. You can’t make an ‘exhibit’ of them in a legal trial and they carry no weight as factual evidence.
This, I think, makes it sound like ‘morality’ is not as important as ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’.
As a result, dependence on the legal system to ‘decide’ matters of social behaviour means that moral views are increasingly minimised and treated as ‘just opinions’.
I think the view of ‘morality’ being like some afterthought or meaningless opinion is really dangerous. I’d go so far as to say that it erodes trust, and degrades human behaviour and social standards.
To judge Patrick Clancy for divorcing and remarrying so quickly is not considered relevant because his actions are considered ‘normal’. To ask questions about why his new wife looks a lot like the woman who killed his children is considered none of anyone’s business. Again, it’s considered ‘normal’.
Also, no one seems to question why Lindsay Clancy was prescribed *13* different drugs while being depressed, having insomnia, and having abnormal anxiety while being the main caregiver to three small children. Again, it’s considered ‘normal’.
On the surface, the ‘evidence’ shows that Patrick Clancy did ‘normal’ things. However, his three children are now dead, killed by his wife. That is far from ‘normal’.
Evidence is a left-brain, mechanical way of thinking. It’s the form of thinking the legal system is based on.
Morality and emotional responsiveness to situations is a right-brain, instinctual or spiritual way of thinking.
Evidence has its place, but there needs to be a balance. I think there needs to be more emphasis on a right-brain, spiritual way of thinking when it comes to ‘rules’ and ‘social norms’.
Absolutely not.
Are you suggesting that you’d prefer for your guilt or innocence to be decided on a “spiritual way of thinking” rather than evidence?
Prisons are full of spiritual thinkers. Just ask them.
They are all innocent too NA.
No, HG, that is NOT what I’m suggesting at all.
Here on the blog, we are not in a court trial. While you are discussing Patrick Clancy in a YouTube video, you are not in a court trial.
Your words I quoted from your YT video in my comment above, though, did sound like you were a lawyer in a court trial.
In your YT video, you said:
“In short, there’s no evidence to support an affair. Therefore, we cannot take that into account as a potential impact upon the behaviour of Lindsay Clancy.”
Firstly, please think about it this way for a minute …
Imagine a husband and wife living together day after day and raising their small children.
The husband’s attitude and behaviour towards his wife is something that affects his wife every day in a variety of ways. Similarly, the wife’s attitude and behaviour towards her husband affects her husband in a variety of ways.
There is a wide spectrum of behaviours of each. Consider these behaviours as being on a spectrum.
Thinking about the husband …
The spectrum of his behaviours could be “attentive and responsive” at one end of the spectrum and “having an affair” at the other end of the spectrum.
Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, his behaviour could be “spending three days away on a skiing trip while wife is at home with insomnia and depression”.
Every single point on the spectrum of the husband’s behaviour “has a potential impact” on the wife’s behaviour.
None of this could be considered concrete ‘evidence’ in a court trial though.
Secondly, to your comment here …
There are many times in a court trial where ‘right-brain thinking’ is relied upon. People don’t, and can’t, just turn their ‘right-brain’ or ‘spiritual’ thinking off when they step foot inside a court room.
Consider the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’. How does each individual in the court room define ‘reasonable’? How does each jury member react to each witness just by the way the witness looks, their body language, their expressions, their emotions, do they cry, smile, frown, etc etc. This is all taken into account, but it can’t be deemed ‘evidence’.
Also, a point that is relevant here is the concept of ‘camps of belief’ that you discussed in your YT video about Jason Arday with the title ‘How Do We Choose Our Villains’.
People form ‘camps’ based on their initial perspectives and then they dig their heels in based on these initial opinions even when they are shown concrete ‘evidence’.
This is also a form of ‘right-brain thinking’ but it definitely happens and it would happen inside the court room too.
In my comment, my point was that reliance on ‘evidence’ alone **outside the court room** (said with emphasis) leads to left brain thinking that erodes social norms and values.
You do understand, do you not, that the assessment of Lindsay Clancy (not Patrick Clancy who you seem to have a preoccupation with) must be based on evidence. Not speculation, not theories, but actual evidence.
You wrote “Your words I quoted from your YT video in my comment above, though, did sound like you were a lawyer in a court trial.” – No, YOU have made that inference. I am simply assessing the evidence, it is you that has suggested it makes me sound like a lawyer. Would you say the same to a scientist who analyses a blood sample and explains “The evidence shows you have an iron deficiency” would you regard that assessment of evidence as “sounding like a lawyer in a court trial”?
You wrote
“Firstly, please think about it this way for a minute …
Imagine a husband and wife living together day after day and raising their small children.
The husband’s attitude and behaviour towards his wife is something that affects his wife every day in a variety of ways. Similarly, the wife’s attitude and behaviour towards her husband affects her husband in a variety of ways.
There is a wide spectrum of behaviours of each. Consider these behaviours as being on a spectrum.
Thinking about the husband …
The spectrum of his behaviours could be “attentive and responsive” at one end of the spectrum and “having an affair” at the other end of the spectrum.
Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, his behaviour could be “spending three days away on a skiing trip while wife is at home with insomnia and depression”.
Every single point on the spectrum of the husband’s behaviour “has a potential impact” on the wife’s behaviour.
None of this could be considered concrete ‘evidence’ in a court trial though.” – Your last sentence demonstrates the problem. I am basing the assessment on evidence not some spectrum of what Patrick Clancy might have been doing or not doing, which is speculation. There is so much speculation about Patrick Clancy. You invite me to “imagine”, no – I will rely on the evidence. This reliance on speculation and repeated focussing on the effect of what Patrick Clancy may or may not have done demonstrates again an absence of logic and a reliance on an emotional response.
“Consider the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’. How does each individual in the court room define ‘reasonable’? How does each jury member react to each witness just by the way the witness looks, their body language, their expressions, their emotions, do they cry, smile, frown, etc etc. This is all taken into account, but it can’t be deemed ‘evidence’.” – A judge provides direction as to what reasonable doubt is. This varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A witness evaluates the evidence, giving it appropriate weight and does so also under the direction of the judge.
Yes, individuals fail to have regard to evidence when they ought to do so, which is a flaw of emotional based decision making which is precisely the point I am making. I operate on evidence, not emotional reactions in the way you have demonstrated.
@wisernow
I’ve thought the same thing, I wasn’t in a healthy frame of mind in any of my relationships but I didn’t have children murdered by their father though – I’m not sure how you’d really adjust to life after that in a way that you wouldn’t come across as too nuts and depressed to be in a relationship with. Even people who have had partners that have committed suicide dont really move on because that would involve taking all the pictures down and packing up all of your dead partners belongings in order to make way for someone new – that appears to be the hardest thing to do, to let go of all of that
Hi Witch,
Yes, I agree, I think that adjusting to life and moving on after a devastating loss like that would be very difficult. Even though people experience grief differently, I still think that if a person had empathy, there would be things like PTSD, sadness, shock, and even survivor’s guilt that would have an emotional impact.
In a comment earlier today, I wrote about postpartum psychosis.
I’ve watched a program hosted by Oprah about it, as well as a documentary about Carol Carbonaro, who killed her three young daughters in 2014.
It is a very serious, very devastating mental health condition that affects 1 or 2 new mothers out of 1,000 births.
It seems to me that it makes a huge difference if a husband and father has empathy if or when he experiences his wife having symptoms or showing signs that may be related to it.
Postpartum psychosis can appear suddenly and when it does, that is when the situation is already a medical emergency and poses a massive red flag.
As explained in the Oprah program, there are numerous ‘pink flags’ that appear which are warning signs. When these pink flags show up in a mother’s behaviour after birth, the people around her – i.e. her husband/partner, family, medical staff, etc – need to take it seriously and be aware of what to do.
*Correction: Carol Ann Coronado is the woman who killed her three young daughters in 2014.
Well said. I get Shannan and Chris vibes from these two. A very sick dynamic. 😢
I think no matter the dynamic that I haven’t put much focus on the nature of the relationship between Patrick and Lindsay because the relationship isn’t on trial. I haven’t been convinced that her marriage was an important motivation, and motivation doesn’t have to be proven to determine guilt.
I find it notable that there is such a focus on the behavior of Patrick and others. It’s similar to how some see Shanann as partially the cause of her own murder and that of the Watts children. I’m not asserting that you do but your mention of that case reminds me of the similarity.
The sole agent in this case who provided the necessary and sufficient conditions for the killings of Cora, Dawson, and Callan was their mother. No one else, no institution, no dynamic.
“I think it would be entirely understandable for an individual to want to move on from his life being affected as it was by the death of his children.”
I’m not defending him at this moment in time.
However, he did find his-then-wife having jumped out of the window, the bloodied knife and the blood on the floor inside the house, then seeing each of his dead children with ‘ropes’ around their necks. That is a huge mind-f**k = PTSD.
Then having to ‘relive’ the thoughts / emotions of all what his mind saw during the court trial. Possibly re-triggering the PTSD over the same ‘trauma’ (one catalyst) that created that particular PTSD.
Never mind having to ‘process’ the fact he was not there to stop her carrying out what she did.
I’m still not pointing the finger at any particular person at this present moment in time because ultimately there is a “system” in place that had ‘loop-holes’ that resulted in 3 children losing their rights to live.
His-then-wife carried out the act.
Three times.
Hi Asp Amp,
Patrick would not have or have had PTSD if he is a narcissist. The “perfect” family suggestion in situations like this always makes me suspicious, what was she living with? No one knew my seemingly “perfect” family situation with my ex. Not even our children, who lived in the home with us. There are so many things they and others will never know. Add to that a variety of ways of handling stress, I go inside, more to suicide, never considered hurting anyone else. Others go other ways, it depends on a variety of things.
That said, I have not watched anything about the situation, only hearing bits and pieces here and there from varies places. I appreciate very much Z’s comment below regarding innocent until proven guilty. I think it is safe to say we all know she did it, so not innocent of the act, but perhaps innocent in the why. It remains to be seen how that plays out. I do hope others are, or have been, investigated as possibly complicit, though your comment that she was receiving help was understandable given she was on medications, had a nanny etc. I still scratch my head as to why she didn’t go to a hospital or the police and just leave the children there. But, the people involved know much more about it than I do so I won’t question that. Previously I said I hope our justice system does it’s job, I stand by that and can only trust that they will, no matter what the outcome is, whether I agree with it or not.
Hi AV,
“Patrick would not have or have had PTSD if he is a narcissist.” Exactly.
Since she had the “thoughts” for some time before the actual ‘events’, it was not necessarily a sudden impulse to carry out the actions. All in all, 10 minutes at the least / the most.
The ‘why’ is the trigger. No matter how many ‘triggers’ set off to accumulate into the mitigating circumstances over a period of time.
She was experienced with the ‘equipment’ she used. She was a trained nurse.
So many factors. Not necessarily enough ‘reasons’ to be considered as necessarily ‘valid’ (to do what she did).
For me, it was the time spent and how each child physically experienced something they would never understand (emotionally and mentally – consider why I typed emotionally first). Even though it was 1-2 minutes, not a few seconds.
She had ‘complained’ about her second child when he was 19 months old, it was the wording she used to describe her son.
Is it neurological or a selective mind-block behaviour?
Thank you for your reply, it was good to read what you wrote.
Asp Amp, that makes a lot of sense, thank you.
Thank you for your reply. Now we know HG’s take on what Lindsay is. We will have to wait and see what occurs on 29th September onwards.
Hi Asp:
I don’t know the details but either she is guilty or she is innocent and if innocent and lost her mind and killed her children? If so her life is over. If I lost my mind and killed my kids, I would not be on planet Earth. I would kill myself. There is no surviving this.
Mr. Tudor,
We know it one juror holding out, reason seemingly that he doesn’t think she was in a state of psychosis if the sources I have seen are accurate about that. We can’t know his classification from that alone.
1. If you were that one juror, what would be going on in your head? What factors would influence your behavior personally in that situation? How would you be weighing the prime aims and necessary triad? What would matter most, control over someone you deemed to have committed three murders (justice), control and stimulation/fuel over the group of eleven in a novel, unlikely to ever be replicated circumstance or punishing lawyers for taking your time, other factors?
2. Which schools of narcissist would have the easiest time holding out as one in disagreement?
3. Which schools of empath would be the hardest to crack (for anyone other than the Ultra)?
Thank you so much for your time! Much appreciated!
1. I would not be on the jury. I am exempt.
2. Most narcissist would have little difficulty in holding out. LMR, MMR A and MMR B would be less able compared to the others.
3. Super.
I’ve been really looking forward to this!!! Thank you, HG.
You are welcome.
Well HG, this story is proving to be some media / public ‘storm’.
I watched a small number of videos (totalling approximate 1:45 hours) of the court room, including testimonials from the grandmother, the sister, the nanny and the husband. I was also observing Clancy’s lawyer’s behaviours and Clancy herself. I also found quite a detailed article that I found rather interesting as it was quite exhaustive. **I will respectfully await your analysis (as it progresses) as you will have spent some considerable time perusing the information and gathering the facts for your students / viewers / readers…..
Yet…..
I may be jumping the gun by recalling your series on Virginia McCullough (Parricide); Helen Hewlett…..
or did her medication combined with the pressures of being a parent ‘interfere’ with what she did as forms of coping strategies ie work-outs in their basement / at the gym? I think something big triggered her especially in the summer / autumn of 2022 and part of the reason for employing the nanny at that time.
From what I understand, Lindsay was / did receive a lot of support from doctors / healthcare professionals; her family; her husband and also had a nanny and yet it was not enough to prevent what took place. She was prescribed with many medications (whether by trialling, or combined, or was simply not doing the work she expected them to?).
It is understandable that there would be a reduction in emotional empathy (if any) from herself, possibly lack of empathy, especially following her fall as some people just do not recover mentally / emotionally from a trauma as such as she experienced, or, even have a form of brain damage.
Observing her mother was interesting.
Thank you in advance for your work on this series HG.
Mr Tudor,
What about the presumption of innocence?
She is innocent as it stands.
Untill a jury convicts her of murdering her 3 children no one can start from the assumption that she murdered her 3 children.
I will accept that you do a hypothetical exercise, but I will 100% defend her right for the presumption of innocence.
She killed the three children.
She is seeking to avoid a conviction for murder by maintaining she was not criminally responsible by reason of insanity namely post partum psychosis.
Hello HG and Z,
Z,
When I read your comment that Clancy is “innocent as it stands”, it was a bit alarming to be honest.
Her trial was declared a mistrial and therefore she wasn’t convicted, however, there is absolutely no doubt that she did murder her own three defenceless small children. That is a fact.
There’s no room for a ‘presumption of innocence’ in my mind.
I think that people in general look at a legal verdict of either ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ and then make a decision as if it’s a black and white issue. It’s misleading to think that way.
If Clancy is found ‘not guilty’ in a forthcoming trial due to psychosis or whatever, that will set a very dangerous precedent in the ‘justice system’.
The law and the justice system isn’t the ultimate arbiter of what is ‘innocent’ and what isn’t.
Sorry if I sound harsh. I don’t mean to be.
Hi, WN. I didn’t take it as you being unduly harsh. It was a harsh crime. It was three harsh crimes. It’s exposing harsh women and harsher realities.
My understanding is that the defense stipulated the basic fact that she did kill the children, so she did it and there’s no innocence. I hope you don’t worry too much about being harsh on a triple murderer. What if she had gone back to work and under her claimed psychosis killed three other children?
I’ve always been troubled by the insanity defense in law. If someone has a history of going so off the rails as to commit a violent crime, doesn’t that make it all the more evident they should be removed from society? Insane or not, shouldn’t the act be dealt with?
Next thing you know we’ll say it’s part of mothering culture to kill your children. The clout chasers of TikTok and the recent demise of Gloria Steinem are part of this perfect storm. Somebody is gonna start wondering if women should be trusted with, let’s say, voting if they can’t be trusted with their own kids! The female narcissists among us will scream the loudest for rights without accountability. Don’t worry about being harsh. If you are I think harshness against true evil is warranted. If I’m not in a spiritual mood, Clancy may not be evil, but she’ll do until evil gets here.
I’m really disturbed by her lawyer pointing the finger at the juror who voted guilty. He’s put a bounty on that (presumably male) person’s head and he knows it. But he’s incentivized. Lindsay’s parents’ GoFundMe is working overtime, and I’m sure it’s all a very heady experience for him as an attorney.
My empathy says that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. I think harshness properly earned should be paid.
Hi Allison,
From your reply, I see that I need to clarify something.
When I said, “Sorry if I sound harsh,” it was directed to Z.
My thinking was that Z would probably react to my comment by thinking it was argumentative or that I was giving her a lecture, etc.
After being on the blog for a while, I’ve had my fair share of pushback when saying something contradictory or when raising a point that others disagree with.
For example, I’ve been told I need to “use honey” in my interactions, or I’ve been accused of being passive-aggressive, etc.
Allison,
As far as what you have said here about LC, her crimes, the trial, justice, and the legal fallout, I totally agree.
Allison says, “I’ve always been troubled by the insanity defense in law. If someone has a history of going so off the rails as to commit a violent crime, doesn’t that make it all the more evident they should be removed from society? Insane or not, shouldn’t the act be dealt with?”
I couldn’t agree more. I honestly don’t care why she did it. It needs to be dealt with. If she’s proven not guilty because she wasn’t criminally responsible, that means there’s a possibility that she can be out at some point, free to live her life. That idea disturbs me on so many levels. Her children aren’t free to live their lives. Why should she? I’m not opposed to her being in a mental institution. I just need it to be for the rest of her life.
I tend to agree with you that empathy for the guilty feels like cruelty to the innocent. At least for me that’s how it feels. But I know there are empathic people who also have empathy for Clancy & as well as the children. Sometimes its not always easy to control who you feel empathy for.
I also wanted to say that it’s nice to see you commenting again.
“I know there are empathic people who also have empathy for Clancy & as well as the children. Sometimes it’s not always easy to control who you feel empathy for.”
Leigh, do you think the reason I feel empathy for Clancy is because I can’t control who I feel empathy for?
Hi AA,
I was thinking about my daughter when I wrote that comment. She has empathy for Clancy. Here’s my honest answer. I think that’s emotional thinking. I think people cannot believe that a mother could do such horrific things to their children so they make excuses for her behavior.
I said this in another comment. Strangulation causes terror in the victims. How can a mother who supposedly loves her children cause terror in them? I cannot understand it. I just can’t.
Now with that said, I still think the healthcare system is to blame too. They could’ve stopped it as well.
Hi WN,
I agree with Allison. I didn’t find your comment harsh at all. Its a fact. They’re not trying to determine innocence. She definitely killed her children.
I can’t get passed the nature of the crime. When the children were struggling for air and their arms and legs were flailing about, where was her empathy? How was she able to watch it?
Thanks Leigh. You and I have similar views about LC and what she did.
In a comment to Allison, I have explained what I meant when I said, “Sorry if I sound harsh.”
I said it directly to Z rather than about LC or LC’s crime. I said it because I thought Z may react negatively to my comment.
Z does believe there is room for a ‘presumption of innocence’.
While I think ‘innocence’ is a not a word I would use in relation to LC, I can also understand what Z is saying.
This is a complex case. There are layers and facets of it that both can and can’t be understood.
The fact remains though that three innocent defenceless children were killed.
Hi, Leigh. “I also wanted to say that it’s nice to see you commenting again.” Thank you.
A discrete 20 minutes of insanity. Never before, never since. Retroactively. She meticulously orchestrated the behavior of others but not her own. I wish she had run those errands herself. Or used a service. Or done almost any of a thousand other things. And now she’s the victim.
Chris Watts must be kicking himself.
Hi WN & Allison,
I hope this case shines a light on the deficiencies in our healthcare system with regard to mental health issues.
As I’ve said earlier, I don’t just blame LC. Her healthcare providers should’ve done better as well..
Hi Leigh,
Yesterday, I watched part of a YouTube video about postpartum psychosis (PPP).
The video is a program hosted by Oprah that was posted several days ago. It’s called: ‘The Lindsay Clancy Case, What We Need to Know about Postpartum Psychosis.’
The video is 1.5 hours long, and I’ve yet to watch it in full.
The program features mothers who have experienced PPP first-hand after giving birth. Their husbands also describe what they experienced while their wives had PPP.
The program also features doctors and experts who discuss the condition.
It’s an eye-opening program. Personally, I didn’t know about PPP and how it manifests.
From watching the program so far, my views have changed somewhat about Lindsay Clancy. I now think she did have PPP (or a similar mental health condition that manifests in the same symptoms).
PPP exists and it’s described by medical practitioners in the program as a ‘medical emergency’. It requires rapid hospitalisation and protection for the children.
From the accounts of the parents in the program, they said that medical care was generally not quick or easy to obtain. However, the parents generally took urgent precautionary measures into their own hands in order to protect their children.
An important factor is that new mothers don’t know what to expect and they don’t realise how serious the situation is when they start having intrusive thoughts or flashes of hallucinations. They are reluctant to tell anyone because they don’t want to be thought of as crazy and they fear their babies will be taken away.
I continue to think that there were points in time that Lindsay and Patrick could, and should, have been more attuned to each other and more concerned about Lindsay’s mental health struggles and how they may have affected her when she was with the children.
I think that both of them showed a cavalier attitude about how serious the situation was. It sounds like they thought that taking different pills for depression and other symptoms was going to fix things.
If Lindsay was a skilled nurse who had “read all the books” about child-birth and child rearing, it surprises me that she and Patrick didn’t take things more seriously, to be honest.
I think it’s too easy to shift all the blame onto medical staff and healthcare practitioners. They go by what patients tell them and they are human too, with their own schedules, objectives, and human faults. They are not all-knowing, all-seeing saints who can diagnose everything perfectly.
Generally, I think there needs to be more education about PPP so that there is more awareness all round. New mothers need to feel safe about talking about it, and people need to know that it’s a medical emergency.
Hi WN,
I saw that podcast. There were a couple of things that stood out to me. I thought the two husbands took on more of a responsibility than Patrick did. I also learned that postpartum psychosis waxes and wanes. I also understand that women are afraid that their babies will be taken away.
I didn’t experience postpartum depression with either of my children. But I think that if I thought I was going to harm my children, I’d want to put distant between myself and the children.
One of the women on the episode spoke about the voice telling her to hold her baby under the water while she was bathing him. She immediately grabbed the baby and stopped giving him a bath.
I believe postpartum psychosis is real. I remember what happened with Andrea Yates too. Its also very possible that LC waa suffering from it. I also think it needs to be taken more seriously. I’m just not convinced that it was the psychosis that caused such a serious erosion of empathy in LC.
I do believe ultimately she should be help responsible. But I also don’t like that Patrick & her mother knew she was having thoughts of harming the children & did nothing about it. I also wish the hospital did more
Hi Leigh,
The LC trial has caused me to learn about postpartum psychosis. I didn’t know about it before.
Learning about it has changed my views about LC’s motivations. I think she killed the children because she was having delusional thoughts.
If she heard a voice and heard it only one time on the day the children died, that part doesn’t add up. Each of the first-hand accounts I’ve listened to about postpartum psychosis describe the delusions and intrusive thoughts as building up over time and being repetitive.
I now see how urgent and serious postpartum psychosis is. I’m sad for her that she asked for help and didn’t get adequate help. I also think Patrick did not take enough responsibility to help Lindsay and protect the children.
There are some inconsistencies and also some negligence involved. It is a very sad case all round.
Hi WN,
I agree that it’s a very sad case. Hearing Mr. Tudor’s analysis made it sadder for me.
If LC was living in a Narc Nest that included potentially her own mother and husband, how much help do you think she would get even though she made it clear she needed it? Narcs will treat you like a leper if you have a cold, much less a possible mental issue. They may have had their own reasons for ignoring her depending on their own Prime aims. Or not. It’s interesting to read the various opinions.
“If LC was living in a Narc Nest that included potentially her own mother and husband, how much help do you think she would get even though she made it clear she needed it?”
I agree, NA. That’s why I think they were part of the problem.
Hi Leigh. “I think people just can’t fathom that a mother would do this to her children so they need to blame an external factor.”
I agree. There is a belief that women are inherently good and men are inherently bad. This means if a woman performs a heinous act, she therfore can’t be responsible. I also think this is at work when we encounter female narcissism but must call it something else (BPD, HPD, etc.). It’s as though it would be a terrible thing to call such women what they are because that would violate their assumed purity. The other diagnoses for women carry a sense of tragedy and lack of volition while narcissism is freely stamped onto men if they are bigger jerks than we expect them to be.
I think it’s too disturbing to accept women can be evil because we know (whether we acknowledge it or not) that women dominate the intimate care sphere.
I find women’s culture frightening to navigate on a personal level. I’ve always found it rather narcissistic in a real way. Women are covered in a facade of moral trustworthiness whether they’ve earned it or not. Unless the other girls don’t like you, then all bets are off. I’ve lived with that one I must tell you. The lines women draw around you once you violate the code and are a Bad Woman are made for bizarre reasons.
For instance, if Clancy looked like Syndney Sweeney these wonderful goddesses would have shaved her head, cracked her bones, gibbeted her before the next full moon, and called it justice.
Hi Leigh,
HG’s conclusion irritated me, to be honest.
I respect HG and I hold his work in high regard. I have said in a variety of ways many, many times.
In this case though, I think his view that LC was not in psychosis when she killed the children is inaccurate.
HG,
I agree with the other aspects of your conclusion except for your views on LC’s psychosis.
Psychosis is a condition where the person suffering it, (i.e. having intrusive thoughts and delusions), is not rationally aware of what is happening to them while in the delusional state.
The psychosis itself makes the woman’s thinking such that she is not rational and does not know she is not rational. To her, her thinking while in psychosis is real. The delusions she has look and feel real.
When the psychosis wanes and she does have rational thinking, she fears her baby will be taken away if she discloses in full her irrational thoughts.
This is why it’s so important to understand that it’s an **illness** and an emergency.
Compassion and treatment for the mother is paramount. She needs to know her children will not be taken away and she will receive compassionate and real help. She needs to sleep and recover properly (with appropriate medication) while being monitored so that the symptoms of psychosis gradually reduce.
To claim that a woman is in psychosis and also has the capacity to know what she is doing is just plain wrong.
The evidence did not support psychosis. Once again, your response demonstrates you operate far too much on emotion and not enough on logic.
Your observations about Patrick Clancy are in a similar vein.
I do not believe that I “operate far too much on emotion”.
I’ve listened to doctors and researchers discussing postpartum psychosis. Everything I have discussed here on the blog about it being an illness is factual.
Lindsay Clancy’s actions on the fateful day were totally out of character and, as you said yourself, her suicide attempt was genuine.
On the subject of Patrick Clancy, the children were his children too. He had a responsibility to care for and protect them. In order to do this, he should have taken more responsibility in taking care of his children’s mother.
I made that observation because the presentation of your comments demonstrates they are driven by an emotional response rather than one which is based on logic.
Hi Allison,
Ugh! Women can be so catty. We should be lifting each other up, not tearing each other down. Its interesting your point about Sydney Sweeney. That’s what happened with Erika Kirk. Was her beauty one of the reasons why she was torn down? I find it happens with powerful & wealthy woman as well.
I’m sorry you’ve experienced that cattiness. I think between my mother and father, I’m fucked up good. I don’t trust people in general. Thanks to my mother’s lack of compassion, I don’t believe just because you’re female, you have compassion. Thanks to my father leaving, its easier for me to detach. So when I encounter catty women, I’m quick to detach.
I saw your comment about the delusions don’t disappear when you obey them. I don’t know how I missed that! My mother and brother suffered from delusions & they obeyed them all the time & they had them throughout their whole entire life.
It was definitely cold blooded. Those poor children. I wonder how she really feels now, does she even remember doing it? It literally made me want to cry, reading your comment Leigh.
Hi WN,
I actually agree with Mr. Tudor. I don’t think it was postpartum psychosis either. She only heard the voice that one day and after she killed her children, it went away.
I do agree that she didn’t have enough help from Patrick. He definitely done more.
“Ugh! Women can be so catty.”
You know, I like cats so I think I’ll retire that comparison. Instead, I’m going to start comparing toxic women to the Beijing Pooper. She is their symbol. I can take that image into any direction I like to make a point about modern femininity.
To help my understanding I would ask to see her under the Tudorscope, but I value HG’s continued health and cleanliness. Besides, I’m afraid it would give Vaknin an undeserved thrill.
Hi Allison,
I had to Google Bejing Pooper. I didn’t watch the videos! 🤮🤮🤮
I love kitties too! I have 5 of them!
Hi AV,
I think LC must remember doing it because she confessed to it.
Hearing Mr. Tudor say that she killed her children in cold blood and seeing you write it, makes me incredibly sad. I saw 1WC said she cried during the analysis too.
This whole thing is gut wrenching.
Hello WN, TS,
@WN, Thank you for your comment and your sensitivity and concern about bringing your opinion. There is no problem, your opinion is as valid as any other opinion.
@TS, Thank you for your reply on another comment
WN, I will be honest, I am not able to cope with the valid but strong opinions in this case, and for my well being, I engage as little as possible (preferably not). I decided at first to not come back to this thread and just leave it be.
I do not take your opinion the wrong way. And you were considerate and kind while expressing your opinion, therefore I decided I owed it to answer you back.
Sometimes it is better to remove yourself if you are not able to regulate your emotions and calm yourself and get back to a calm and peaceful place.
For that reason I am not listening to the Tudorscope for the time being, and therefore I have no understanding of where Mr Tudor is going in his analysis, meaning is he leaning towards ASPD, NPD, or anything else.
I was so so shell shocked by the vile comments people left both in the live chat and the comment section, I had to recover for days and that was only attending 1 video.
Coming to the blog and finding the same type of comments, has left me homeless.
The lack of empathy shown for a struggling mother, that is simply not how I want to live my life.
I have seen PPD and PPP first hand experience, and I know it is a struggle beyond words.
The lack of empathy and the vile comments, the judgements, the glorification of a juror not applying the law, all together it is a sign to retreat myself in my bubble with my cats and my favourite music playlist.
Maybe indulge myself with some silly cat videos.
Call me naive but maybe I hoped for balance in opinions. The test of a civilisation is the measure of consideration handed out to the weakest members.
Narcsite has been my home for 8 years plus, and I witnessed many heated discussions, strong opinions, people calling each other out, political divide, this is another level.
I don’t feel compelled to express my opinion (I answered a few people on YT and oh my lord people’s anger and coarseness, if there was no screen the spit would no doubt have been sufficient to water my garden for a week, that’s not my happy place) and it would benefit nobody, so I will refrain.
But legally, there are some things I would like to express (generally, not to you so forgive I take this opportunity).
I am a lawyer (and attorney in my country), which explains my sensitivity for the misinformation and use of legally (in)correct terms.
If anyone is interested in correct information:
After all the evidence was presented in this case, and after the closing arguments, the judge addressed the jury with the following instruction (literally, video evidence included):
1) Indictments are only an accusation, not evidence
2) The Defendant has denied the indictments
3) The law presumes the defendant to be innocent
4) This is a rule of law, you must find not guilty
5) unless and until the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
6) He Repeats: the defendant is presumed to be innocent
7) The presumption of innocence stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously
8) It requires you to find not guilty unless and until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt
https://youtu.be/WbaKiNbG_Sk?si=JhprdoCvOJo82T6Z&t=126
Three times in these instructions has the judge explained, repeated and instructed, in no uncertain terms, that the defendant is innocent (3, 4, 6 and 7 in my summary).
Since “7” did not take place (‘unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously’), and since there is no verdict, this presumption still stands.
Therefore, with my background as being a lawyer and my drive for accuracy, I will keep on correcting the spreaders of misinformation, who operate fueled by their disgust and desire to shout to everybody “that she confessed” (which from a legal standpoint she obviously did not), and that we should all agree to burn the witch. Forget all legal procedures, protections and laws, a trial is so unnecessary, just burn the witch already.
Attorneys’ opening statements, closing arguments, objections, theory, … is not evidence.
Attorneys’ statements, characterisation of the evidence, are not evidence.
A trial strategy is not evidence.
None of this is something the jury can take into account.
Therefore, I’m trying to be patient with, and show grace to all these commenters (sometimes well intentioned but uneducated, sometimes overtaken by emotion, and others willingly just hard of understanding): “but but but her attorney said”, I will say it one more time: That is not evidence!
I am talking from the perspective as a lawyer and from a legal perspective.
Do I doubt she will plead guilty if she is offered a plea deal? Of Course not.
Am I stupid? Also no.
From thereafter, it will be legally proven that she killed her children. From that point on, everybody is allowed to call her guilty and accept the elements of the case as proven.
But we are not there.
And from a legal standpoint, I will continue to correct people.
Because today she is presumed innocent and people are legally not allowed to pontificate she “is a murderer”.
I understand everybody feels strongly, but at this point, there is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt, nor a plea deal.
A second point to address is her memory of what happened and what she allegedly explained (“confessed”) to the experts.
I would like to bring the following to your attention:
In 2018, Thomas Perez Jr from California, confessed to killing his father, notwithstanding his father was still alive. Being on medication for depression (same as LC), being sleep deprived (same as LC), and in traumatising conditions (same as LC), in a state of total confusion (same as LC), he confessed to killing his father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3vL9BC1bTY
He confessed to stabbing, details of the killing, the time, etc…
Memory literally means nothing. Our memory is extremely flexible and can remember things that never happened, or can be tricked to remember things that never happened.
As evidenced also in “The Confessione Tapes”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8517R-rzao
which highlights stories of several people who confessed to heinous crimes that they didn’t do.
Also Elizabeth Loftus, who studies how the memory fabricates memory and explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI
I am just going to leave these pieces of information here. Reasonable people will at a minimum watch it, for the others it is wasted and I am in no anticipation whatsoever they will consider the flexibility of the human memory.
Back to my cat bubble and cat videos I go.
Well stated. Do not stay in the cat bubble for too long (the cat hairs might make you sneeze).
Hello Z,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the legality of the situation and to attach the relevant links.
I have also read the YouTube comments and seen other YouTube creator content and been similarly disillusioned. Talking dog videos work too 😉
(No need to respond.)
Dear Z, thank you for this. I will check the links soon and I appreciate you putting this commentary together.
On the topic of cats, I read that one of yours ‘passed over’ and you’re still feeling it. I empathise!
Hello Z,
It’s good to hear from you. Thank you for your comment and I hope you’re okay. Silly cat videos are definitely therapeutic. I have also found them helpful at times. Kittens and puppies have restorative powers.
I know what you mean about seeing all kinds of comments. Some of the comments I’ve seen under a few different YouTube videos have also been vile and extremely critical.
I didn’t know you are a lawyer. I think that as a lawyer, you see this case in a much more detailed and technical way since you know about the finer legal definitions and implications. Your knowledge also makes you more familiar with the very human, intricate side of crimes and how they are treated in a trial.
The average person doesn’t know about all the legal technicalities, and without this knowledge, many people just run with their assumptions. Sometimes the assumptions can be very crude.
This case has caused stronger than usual emotional reactions too. There is disbelief and anger that a mother would do this to her own babies. I think it has touched a very sensitive nerve in people collectively, because it is seen as unbelievable and completely unacceptable. It goes against deeply held instincts that babies need care and protection. I think it is natural that people feel disbelief and anger.
Although, public emotions and the legal process are two separate and incompatible things.
If you see vile and ignorant comments under the videos, try to scroll past and ignore them as much as possible. You know the law and the legal process and you have the ‘inside knowledge’ about why things are said and done in a trial.
Thank you for the information and links for the examples you have given about memory in different cases. I will have a look at them.
I hope you feel you can listen to HG’s Tudorscope analysis again. And I hope you feel positive and safe to comment here. For me, it’s always good to read everyone’s comments and opinions.
Z says,
“1) Indictments are only an accusation, not evidence
2) The Defendant has denied the indictments…:
I hadn’t realized she’s denying the indictment. Its seems I’ve been sucked in by the misinformation too. Thank you for pointing this out.
I’m sorry to hear about your kitty. I have 5 myself and would be devastated if I lost any of them. May your kitty rest in peace.
Thank you for this Z. All of our emotions, even our experiences, do not change the fact of the legalities. Appreciate you bringing it back to that. So many times I have been thankful that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in America. I fear many have forgotten this, as I did in this case.
Hello Z, a fellow attorney! Yay! Well said:) I appreciate it. I have been too busy to follow this case so no input on my end but I enjoyed your input:)
Also the blog has gone tame for some reason- differing opinions but respectful:)
“I was so so shell shocked by the vile comments people left both in the live chat and the comment section, I had to recover for days and that was only attending 1 video. Coming to the blog and finding the same type of comments, has left me homeless.”
The conversation has become dominated by those wanting retribution. Speaking for myself, not only can I not match the anger but I can’t deal with the aggression connected to it. For me the dominant emotion about this whole case is sadness. The anger and righteousness I’ve see expressed in comments just makes me sadder.
“I have no understanding of where Mr Tudor is going in his analysis, meaning is he leaning towards ASPD, NPD, or anything else.”
I have been keeping up with the content of the videos, Z. He’s not leaning that way.
I would add that people ought to know by know that with the Tudorscope I point out (as part of the open minded approach and to encourage critical thinking) how evidence could be interpreted in different directions in each episode and then I pull it all together in the conclusion.
You identify competing perspectives, yes. But as the comments under the videos can give a skewed perspective, I’m letting Z know it is safe to tune in.
From what I’ve seen the comments have (predictably) followed the pattern of those who think she’s disordered in some way to those who believe she was mentally ill as per her defence. It is of course safe for Z to comment, I gain the impression it was more reactions in the live chat which affected Z.
Hi, Z. I hope you’re better and I’m sorry for your loss.
I will endeavor to be mindful of your suffering at this time while also putting forth what I think is important. I feel strongly for the victims and for justice. Please know that if you choose to continue to read.
For context, if LC were to be punished for her crimes, what would that be? She would be confined in a comfortable environment, receiving any medical or other care she needed, fed daily, provided hygiene, therapy, and anything else she needed all at taxpayer expense. She would lose her freedom, as well she should. She could likely marry again from inside. She would live.
I believe she deserves death. That is consistent with my worldview and sense of justice. That is the standard I apply to myself. Some may say a real empath would never think that way. I don’t care. I understand that many people are against the death penalty and I appreciate that as a reasonable moral stance. Apparently Massachusetts takes this view as well. That’s fine. Reasonable people can disagree on that. But in compromise couldn’t society be protected from her for the length of her life? Doesn’t the slow, agonizing murder of children warrant at least 3 hots and a cot behind prison walls for the term of the killer’s natural life? Is that cruel?
If what people comment about the case is terrible and out of bounds, how much more the crime itself?
I understand that there are times when it’s neither good nor necessary to consume the comments sections on social media. I think here what we’re seeing is a counter to the ways women have manifested support for her–the weird self-serving conspiracies, the women practically waterboarding their infants for the camera, the hastags, the motivated reasoning. All of it.
If you’ve read this far I hope I haven’t hurt you. I’ll share part of the basis for my response to the case. I live with psychosis. I have solid reasons to believe she is lying. But also, God forbid if I ever hurt someone while having an episode. For if I somehow lost the ability to reason and I even so much as strangled my dog I would want to die. And if my attempt at suicide failed, I would beg the state to put me down. I couldn’t live with myself. Forget the trial. Lock me away from the world for I’ve had enough of it.
That’s one reason why I respond as I do, and why I believe that if she’s allowed to go free we’ve not yet seen the destruction, the utter rot this will inject into how men and women live together. And if we are so gentle that we can’t let her live in confinement and provide the help she needs, are we a society without the stomach to protect the innocent?
If men can’t trust women to not murder their own children we don’t have a society. And if mothers can’t be held to account for doing so whilst fathers get full punishment we can’t have justice. We can’t have love in the absence of trust. We can’t have good homes and families if that becomes the way of things. A culture can be judged by how it treats the vulnerable. Lindsay in the face of all her advantages, access, and support is still by many viewed as the victim when it was her own hands that brought such a violent end to her own house.
Empathy isn’t protecting Lindsay from the outcome of living in less cushioned confines than those of the home she herself destroyed. If she had an ounce of valor or maternal love in her she’d help us lock the gate.
Hi Allison,
While I don’t agree with the death penalty, I still felt the empathy in your comment.
My issue with the death penalty isn’t about the death itself. Its about the people who make the decision & carry it out. Is there blood on their hands now. I wouldn’t want to be in either one of those scenarios.
Back to Clancy. You said,
“For if I somehow lost the ability to reason and I even so much as strangled my dog I would want to die. And if my attempt at suicide failed, I would beg the state to put me down. I couldn’t live with myself. Forget the trial. Lock me away from the world for I’ve had enough of it.”
This is exactly how I feel! There would be no trial and I would’ve plead guilty to murder in the first on all 3 counts. I don’t know how anyone with empathy would be able to live with themselves afterwards.
The mothers posting on social media, holding their babies up and saying, “Same, Lindsay” is frightening! If they’re having the same thoughts, why aren’t they getting help?
There’s been no statement from her expressing regret or remorse either. Why not?
I think people just can’t fathom that a mother would do this to her children so they need to blame an external factor.
Thank you for doing this, HG. It’s going to be very interesting indeed.
Very timely as well, with a huge worldwide audience. You know how to tick all the boxes.
My timing actually was based on waiting until the conclusion of the trial.
I’m glad you have decided to put Clancy under the Tudorscope.
In my view, the more relevant information there is about this case, the better it will be for accurate understanding.
Dear Mr Tudor,
We all wait with bated breath.
Ummm, Patrick Clancy remarrying, his wife (“DR” infertility specialist)🤔coming to the trial, his body language, fidgeting n scratching the back of his neck and nose, extremely stoic, slumped shoulders, licking his lips, his blinking omg ……hmmmmm 🤔
Why didn’t he stick around and support his wife thru this horrific tragedy ? Instead he divorces her and moves to a new city.
I didn’t like the look of him when I first laid eyes on him……judgemental(?) absolutely haha
Or seen another way, why would you stick around and support the woman who killed your children? Most people, even if they accepted she was mentally ill, would be so devastated they couldn’t bear to be around such a person.
Great point, HG, why did he? Xx
Money.
Dear HG,
Money and greed, and the children paid the price. Xx
Dear Mr Tudor,
Yes, you’re quite correct, it just appeared “strange” considering he defended her “postpartum” and he’s not showing any other emotions. I think he played a vital role for not protecting his own children “knowing” full well, she was a massive high risk and red flags everywhere.
I believe there’s a lot more to Patrick and their relationship than we know.
And yes, I’m viewing your analysis of her on YT with great interest.
Have you heard, our Erin Patterson (Beef Wellington murderer) has just been approved to have Ozempic supplied to her in prison and funded by the Australian taxpayer.
Why doesn’t she just go on a “mushroom” diet like everyone else? 🤦♀️
I recommend sugar free Haribo sweets for her. She will unleash a tsunami from her rear end which will cause her to fold in on herself. Result!
Dear Mr Tudor,
Bloody brilliant haha
Hey Bubbles, he struck me as rather emotionless, but I heard a bit of discussion on Law&Crime Network. Sierra Gillespie said ‘her photographer’ at the trial saw Patrick Clancy breaking down crying when not on the stand.
I’ve since made allowances for nerves, for how difficult it must have been. especially after three years and having divorced etc. I saw him close to tears at one point, p’raps after the 911 call was played.
I get the gist that his 911 call was very upsetting and LC’s lawyer said it’s a good indicator of his true nature, as opposed to the negative rumours about his part. The 911 call is not available for people to hear.
I’ve also heard along the way, that he frequently went away for work, had Sunday brunch with his bro’s, played golf, went fishing, skiing, jet skiing, all whilst LC was dealing with her children and mental health.
He also did his part by checking in with her every day by text, intervening on her behalf to doctors, telling one doctor he didn’t want to lose his wife.
I get the impression he’s quite ‘old school’ in his approach to marriage and children. You know, do his duty as man and father but have ‘bro time’ and hobbies, even if the woman is foaming at the mouth and rocking in a corner with nappies everywhere. On paper, it sounds reasonable enough for him to keep a healthy ‘life balance’. He said he would’ve paid any amount to help her, insurance not an issue, etc. If he’d been warmer and more empathic, would LC have been receptive to it? Some ladies don’t go for that kind of intimacy. He does not strike me as a warm fella.
I read that he re-married in April 2026, shortly before trial. Apparently that gives spousal protection to his new woman, so she would not have to testify if called upon!
Bit weird that she’s a fertility doctor. Bit of a burn for Lyndsay I thought. It could be that she is empathic toward LC and what happened, partly because of her occupation. She looks a bit like Lyndsay in some ways, a bit more glam.
I would not touch someone with a barge pole if they’d been thro’ what Patrick had. No ta. 😀 I wonder if they knew each other prior.
I think it was a sensible choice to divorce, though it might have been painful.
Hi Mari,
You make some interesting points here about the way some men have an ‘old school’ approach to marriage and children.
I think some men perceive that looking after children and raising them is ‘women’s work’ and that it would be demeaning or ‘unmanly’ if they did things like wash clothes, or cook, or do housework, etc.
In some cultures that still have very sexist attitudes to male and female roles, I think this view of what is seen as ‘women’s work’ is even more pronounced or normalised. It makes the distinction between ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles more ‘socially’ regimented.
“You know, do his duty as man and father but have ‘bro time’ and hobbies, even if the woman is foaming at the mouth and rocking in a corner with nappies everywhere.”
After listening to Part Two of HG’s Tudorscope analysis about LC’s career and work, which was very interesting, the aspect of her working night-shift stood out.
Night-shift or irregular hours are difficult and have a detrimental effect on health in general.
At one point, I had a job with a 5:30am start. My alarm went off at about 3:30am to allow enough time to get ready and travel to work. It was torturous after a while. I lasted less than two years before I left. While in the job, I felt tired most of the time, my sleep patterns were all over the place, and it was hard to focus and stay positive. At the weekends, I’d crash from exhaustion and sleep in for hours. And I didn’t have babies to look after.
I’m not familiar with the details of LC’s trial, but so far I haven’t heard much said about her working night-shifts as a nurse, while being a mother to small children, and how this would have affected her mental health.
Also, why did LC choose night-shift? She was a well-regarded, skilled nurse and could have chosen day-shift. I’m guessing, but usually, night-shift and irregular hours are paid at higher hourly rates. This could have been a reason.
Dear Mari,
Thankyou so much for all your inside information, it’s very interesting indeed. I have only seen media coverage and looked up a little bit here n there.
I still don’t like him haha
We will all be anxiously waiting for the next exciting episode.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Tudor!
Yes please do a video on both of them! I have been waiting for this! I don’t believe that it is just post pardon depression, but I did not follow the trial very much. I am amazed at how many women think she should get off and how much many both of them have made from Go Fund Me.
This is not a place for misinformation, LC did not and does not have a gofundme.
You can have your own opinion, but if you start by saying: I did not follow the trial, maybe first check the facts.
Hi Z,
I’ve listened to most of the testimony. If I was on the jury I would find myself torn between the horror of how those poor children died and my heartbreak at Clancy’s numerous attempts to seek help. How I feel about it and reasonable doubt are two different things but extremely difficult to separate.
Strangely, the only way I can explain it is if she is an empath or at least a normal. It’s a truly heartbreaking case all round.
SPOILER ALERT. COMMENT REFERS TO TUDORSCOPE CONCLUSION.
The conclusion made sense to me. I was in agreement with the finding of altruistic filicide and had concluded similar post listening to most of the court testimony. I didn’t know the term ‘altruistic filicide’ but had estimated her motivation for killing as being what the term means.
There were two sections of the conclusion which were unclear to me though. Both relate to the classification of normal as opposed to empath
( I believed she is an empath.)
The first is with regards to her range of empathy. I agree that in terms of observation Lindsay demonstrated an empathic range that included her children, husband, parents, sibling, friends (including college friends) work colleagues and those she cared for in her role as a nurse. This would suggest a normal range of empathy. There is no direct evidence to support her empathic range being broader than this.
I agree also that she had limited emotional display in the courtroom, as highlighted, this might have been due to her being medicated. There are of course other reasons she might have displayed a muted emotional response. Profound grief might also be considered, a grief that becomes emotional exhaustion and numbness. She might have experienced trauma having to listen to testimony, shame, dissociation from the courtroom environment and so on. I think it’s difficult to estimate the reason for her low emotional output in court.
One thing that has confused me about Lindsay is the fact she has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She has emotional empathy. Presumably she now understands what she has done and is not delusional. If she is ‘clear thinking’ the guilt must now be overwhelming. When I estimate my own response if I was in that position, having killed my three children and lost my husband as a result, I find it difficult to imagine a reason for continuing on, let alone wanting to prove my own innocence.
Thinking about it further, perhaps Lindsay doesn’t need to find a reason to live for herself. If we factor in the passage of time post her realisation of what she has done, the horror and associated guilt attached to that moment of realisation, it’s possible that she has elected to continue not for herself but for her blood relatives. Her parents already lost their grandchildren, could she then put them through the loss of a daughter, intentionally this time and being of sane mind?
Similarly the court case. Perhaps she isn’t actually fighting for herself when she goes through that process and places herself before a jury and the court of public opinion awaiting their judgement of her. Perhaps her remorse appears in the form of recompense or at least an attempt at it. By placing herself in this position, by pleading not guilty, the facts are further examined. The shortcomings of mental health treatment are exposed. Through exposure comes the potential for change. Through change Lindsay might help to ensure that another mother does not reach the point where she is so sick and unstable that she kills her own children. If that is the case, then this suggests a broader range of emotional empathy, now she would be channeling remorse into fighting a cause for women she doesn’t know whilst doing it publicly.
In terms of evidence, I recognise that concrete and observable behaviours suggest a range of empathy conducive to normal. In terms of her motivation now, the pleading not guilty whilst carrying immense guilt, the debate the case has generated, the spotlight on postpartum mental health, and the reason for continuing on with her life, I see this proposition as potentially answering those aspects. If it does, then for me, Lindsay is more likely an empath.
The second aspect of the conclusion I found hard to reconcile was the concept of altruistic filicide coupled with a reduction of emotional empathy and driven by narcissistic traits. Anger and resentment were the traits suggested in the analysis. I find it difficult to run those two aspects simultaneously.
I agree that external stressors cause a reduction in emotional empathy so that narcissistic traits come to the fore resulting in behaviour that appears narcissistic or even psychopathic. The stressor is removed, behaviour reverts back to normal. I agree that altruistic filicide is the correct explanation. She believed she was ‘saving’ the children through killing them. In her broken mind it was an act of love and protection. She did something horrific, unspeakable, because she loved them, too much. What I can’t reconcile is pairing the two together. Suspended emotional empathy and an altruistic love for her children.
I went from the other direction. I see the killing of her children and plan to kill herself more ( in her mind not mine) as an act most similar to survival. The evidence supports that she wanted to do it. The evidence supports desperation whilst doing it. I don’t see anger, or resentment. I see traits linked to survival, possibly defiance and selfishness. I estimate empathic traits linked to healer fixer, compassion, caring and love devotee. The problem is, I see the empathic traits as the main drivers.
The mental illness, insomnia and excessive medication tore Lindsay out of reality and put her into a paranoid, terrifying and purely imagined space. When reality was stripped away, I think all that was left was her emotional architecture. Empathic traits on overdrive, warped and twisted and dialled up beyond her control. Narcissistic traits driving a desperation for survival. Whilst this does not conform to the more usual empathy erosion explanation, it’s the only way I can reconcile altruistic filicide. Empathic traits writ large and wholly out of control, supported by narcissistic survival traits facilitating first going through with the act of murder. For me it’s not one set of traits that leads to that outcome, it’s both.
If that is the case, as twisted as it seems, Lindsay needed a very deep well of emotional empathy to fund that horrific act. Deeper than afforded to a normal in my mind.
Either way, empath or normal Lindsay did and does have emotional empathy. Solely on concrete evidence, I agree she is normal. When I look at possible motivation though ( and I accept there might be some empathic projection on my part here) Empath feels closer to me personally. I find it hard to reconcile her current actions otherwise.
I agree Patrick Clancy is suing for the money. I think Lindsay is suing to force mental health failings out into the open.
Thank you for the analysis, the time involved and the painstaking attention to detail HG. For those who followed the case, I think that analytical depth was absolutely necessary.
Normals can have extremely deep empathy for those they love. They concentrate it on a core group.
The evidence points to Clancy directing her empathy at her own people – family, friends, colleagues, patients.
I think Patrick is a normal as well. Taking steps to make changes in his life is normal behaviour. Moving, interacting with others, accepting support, connecting with others, even marrying (there may have been haste there due to the upcoming trial). My guess is Patrick is dealing with huge amounts of guilt as well as grief and getting the medical system to take some responsibility for what happened will feel vindicating to him. I don’t see him as suing for money, though asking for compensation is normal in these cases.
I’m sure both he and Lindsay will have had legal advice from the get go on how to proceed legally and are closely following that advice.
Hi Annaamel,
I agree, the evidence supports normal, I accept that.
My thoughts that Lindsay is potentially an empath were based specifically around those two aspects I described and as such are more hypothesis based not straight evidence based. I agree with you also that normals have high empathy for those around them. I’m less sure that they self judge quite as much as empaths do and for me they don’t have the same depth.
I don’t know enough about Patrick to really have much of an opinion. Given the circumstances, I didn’t see any obvious narc signs in court. That’s not to say they weren’t there, just that I didn’t see them. In terms of him moving on and marrying again, I have seen similar with a male friend of mine when his wife died. He was motivated by finding a mother for his two young daughters. Sometimes motivations for marrying quickly aren’t straightforward.
I agree in terms of legal advice, both will be closely managed.
“Given the circumstances, I didn’t see any obvious narc signs in court.”
Nor did I.
“Sometimes motivations for marrying quickly aren’t straightforward.“
Thats right and it’s very difficult for any of us to understand exactly how he’d feel and what he’d feel he needs to survive.
“I’m less sure that they self judge quite as much as empaths do and for me they don’t have the same depth.”
Totally agree. Much less self flagellation. I think that’s a big positive for them.
I understand it’s officially for her parents. They are supportive of her and she benefits because it’s to lighten their burden in helping her through the case. Setting it up for LC directly would not happen as that would violate the company’s rules against funding a defense of alleged violent crimes against minors as I read the terms.
Thank you HG!
Thank you HG for putting Clancy under the Tudorscope! Xx