Lindsay Clancy – The Conclusion
A comprehensive analysis based on the evidence and much to learn.
26 thoughts on “Lindsay Clancy – The Conclusion”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
… and wouldn’t you know it, Patrick Clancy is now in a feature interview on 60 Minutes.
And, right on cue, he breaks down several times on camera as he gives “an emotional and raw account” of what the situation has been like for him.
Yes, because his ‘stoic’ court testimony, his travelling around the world while in the throes of grief, and his ‘moving on’ with another woman after one year is giving the world the wrong impression.
The outcome of his forthcoming civil malpractice suit would be more advantageous for him if he cried on camera to milk some public sympathy.
Keep going Patrick, I hope you get all the rope you need.
Before anyone thinks of mentioning anything about any ridiculous conspiracy theories or extramarital affairs, please be aware that my comment has nothing to do with any of that.
The ‘free’ and ‘innocent’ Patrick Clancy can do whatever he likes now.
Patrick can impregnate any woman he meets. He can father another 50 children if he likes.
Meanwhile his former wife and the mother of his deceased children sits paralysed in a wheelchair in custody.
The legal system has decided that ‘she must pay’ for her horrific and unconscionable crime.
Let’s just ‘hope’ (because, you know … hope is so comforting) that Patrick doesn’t have any future children with a woman who has an underlying predisposition to bipolar disorder.
Hopefully, any future potential births of Patrick’s children will be ‘untraumatic’ (whatever the ‘evidence’ for the scale of a ‘traumatic’ birth as opposed to an ‘untraumatic’ birth is supposed to be).
Let’s also hope that Patrick won’t be googling his next weekend away while his future wife is in the opposite room taking one of a dozen mood disorder drugs because she hasn’t slept for four days.
Patrick Clancy was not on trial. Lindsay Clancy was.
Well aware of that, HG.
In perusing both civil suits, I find it interesting that the difference in description about the first few weeks after Callan’s birth to be striking. For the same time period, Lindsay’s suit describes what she and her attorneys claim was a hypomanic period that, due to provider negligence, was missed because they performed an inadequate history. In Patrick’s suit, that exact period describes Lindsay’s repeated communication to Patrick of happiness, fulfillment, and a rich family life for all. Lindsay’s return to physical activities is mentioned in glowing and positive tones, while the exact fitness behavior in Lindsay’s suit is shaded in ominous hues as signs of mania. In Patrick’s suit, this supposedly alarming period is summed up this way: “Life was idyllic for the Clancy’s”.
This discrepancy is either down to a lay person not recognizing the signs of trouble, Lindsay hiding from Patrick, her family, and providers her true feelings, or the two putting together narratives just to best bolster their suits. But the two are so diametrically opposed I’m wondering how any cross examination about the crucial period in question will play out. The lawyers for the defendants are having a great time I’m sure, chomping at the bit.
I can’t help from reading these but to think she wasn’t seeking help but script/doc shopping. There was a frenetic quality to the practice hopping that doesn’t look like inadequate support but drug seeking. I find it of note that when she did manage to go in patient she requested to be discharged for her daughter’s birthday and now refers to that as being let go without a care plan. Her suit also describes an intensive suicide watch in the facility as inadequate. The descriptions of the command “voices” read like what someone who hasn’t experienced auditory hallucinations would think they were like. They read like those of someone who has read about psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, etc. in the DSM and used a ham-handed way to hit the high points to score benzos, quell, and the like. She never reported voices to any providers, yet they are being alleged negligent for misdiagnosis and substandard treatment for something there was no indication of.
I’m of the opinion from the criminal trial evidence and from reading the civil suit narratives that she wasn’t psychotic. She exhibited duplicitous behavior during the crimes. Intrusive thoughts aren’t a lapse of sanity. I think it’s the case that she’s claiming severe impairment after the fact to get out of punishment for triple homicide and to win the civil judgement. Voices don’t stop because you obey them, and delusions don’t evaporate when you act in accordance with them.
Hi Allison,
I would invite you to listen to several detailed first-hand accounts of postpartum psychosis from mothers who have experienced it. Also, watch a documentary or two about mothers who have killed their children.
So far, I’ve watched one documentary (about Carol Coronado) and listened to four or five podcasts.
If you take the time to watch, or to listen in full to a number of such accounts, you will see, as I did, that it’s a serious illness and that the mother suffering from it is not able to realise that she is in fact in psychosis. Mothers keep continuing to function as best they can in the belief that it will pass by itself or that they can somehow overcome it by trying harder, etc.
It’s important to understand the following about the condition:
– Each first-hand experience varies. No two experiences are alike in relation to things like how long the condition lasted, or how easy it was to wilfully ignore or mask symptoms like intrusive thoughts or delusions.
– Some mothers tragically kill their children while the vast majority don’t. The major factor that prevents a mother from killing her child is the support and help received from her husband and/or family.
– Every mother sought help from medical providers when her condition was in the early stages, and sadly, she was either ignored or turned away because it wasn’t considered serious enough. When the condition worsened, and help was sought with urgency and persistence, that is when medical practitioners took notice.
Behaviours during postpartum ‘psychosis’ are different from the psychosis seen in people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. While both are called ‘psychosis’, they present very differently.
The factors considered ‘triggers’ for postpartum psychosis are:
1) A traumatic birth. The definition or measure of a ‘traumatic’ birth will vary with each mother and could be due to various factors. For example, it may be a physically difficult birth; it may be having numerous babies in close succession who are close in age; it could be difficulties with feeding the baby; or any number of other reasons.
2) Having bipolar disorder before birth; or having a genetic predisposition to bipolar disorder; or having a family history of it.
3) Sleep deprivation.
The most triggering of these three factors is sleep deprivation.
By the evidence Lindsay Clancy was never in psychosis before being interviewed in the hospital. There is no evidence she did not know right from wrong in relation to the killings. There is evidence of her being oriented to reality before, during, and after she killed. There is only her word after the fact and in consultation with an effective attorney that she had a break with reality.
It would seem that the only person not responsible for the deaths of the children is the one who ushered them from this world, eyes and veins popping, with elastic bands around their necks. She planned it. She tried to escape the fallout.
She simply didn’t want them anymore.
Motherhood is a struggle. Most mothers, even those in psychosis, do not murder. It is aberrant. How much support does a woman need before she’s deemed responsible for her actions?
Regarding the documentaries and specific to this discussion, postpartum psychosis does not absolve a woman from the unlawful killing of her own children for me. When fathers murder their children my thinking is consistent, and their mental struggles (hormonal or otherwise) don’t absolve them of criminal responsibility. My sympathies remain with the victims and with upholding the norms of civilization.
I have the hardest time getting off the fact that anyone would viciously kill their children.
Hi Allison,
“Motherhood is a struggle.”
At what point do you think, as an onlooker, that a mother should keep on ‘struggling’?
How much should a mother have to say or do before those around her, the people who know her and say they love her, keep letting her ‘struggle’ while she is responsible for caring for numerous very small children, doing the same things 24/7 day after day after day?
How many sleeping pills, depression medication and mood disorder drugs should a ‘struggling’ mother take while being responsible for the care of numerous small children and a baby, before the people around her who know her and ‘love’ her and the children say, “this is too much” ?
“At what point do you think, as an onlooker, that a mother should keep on ‘struggling’?”
Until the job of love is done.
My empathy is for the victims. Lindsay is not a victim. She is a killer, and by some measures a mass murderer.
Jeffrey Dahmer had a ton of diagnoses, including a full blown psychotic disorder. He still exhibited consciousness of guilt. He knew what he was doing even though he was floridly delusional. He was still ruled sane. I think he deserved to be gutted and bled, but maybe I should be more considerate of his lack of social support.
Actually, no. My empathy is with victims.
We are all onlookers to this case, save the mother and her victims. I may be an onlooker to motherhood but not to struggle. There is a difference between struggling and suffering, and between meaningful suffering and needless suffering. But we can’t sanction murder regardless. My empathy makes that clear.
A mother has no right to heap her own struggle onto her children. It happens that some do. But mothers should shield them as well as they can. Parenting is an active resistance to harm and a promotion of care for your children, even and especially if you recognize you as the mother are the potential source of genuine harm, which she claims she did. She killed them. She is not a victim deserving of justice for herself.
She killed them.
She planned. She misdirected. She directed. She timed. She chased. She led. She squeezed. Again. Again.
In the darkness that I walk in I cannot accept the premise that I have a right to engage in unlawful killing. As I’ve stated before I would have no reason to see the next sunrise were that to somehow happen.
You ask how much a mother should say or do, how many pills she should take, before those who love her say “too much”? I wouldn’t know, and I am chilled considering how and when a society of laws would intervene in such actions that aren’t criminal on their face. Maybe she should say and do whatever it takes to keep her from taking her own children to the basement and killing them one by one with her own hands.
What more could Lindsay Clancy have done? Okay, perhaps nothing more in terms of making others responsible for her. But I think she should have done much less than what she did in those 18 minutes.
Before we put pills and other people and systems on trial we should consider that Cora, Dawson, and Callan were not strangled by any of those. I can’t sit with having more concern for Lindsay that I couldn’t bear to see her put away in relative comfort while three little bodies rot underground because of her.
If Lindsay Clancy with a nanny, wealth, professional networks, career success, a loving mother-in-law who was a labor and delivery nurse, a husband (working) in the home, peaceful surroundings, supportive family and friends, a coterie of medical providers, physical health, hobbies, and no need to work outside the home did not get enough support, then I think no mother outside royalty has enough support to keep three children alive. Human history should look very different.
She is not the victim. My empathy is with the victims.
Hi Allison,
The women who killed their children due to postpartum psychosis were described by people around them as very caring, very devoted mothers.
You conveniently ignore this very important fact. There is evidence for this fact.
The women’s actions in killing their children were totally out of character compared to their prior devotion to their children.
Another aspect you fail completely to address is that of sleep deprivation.
Sleep deprivation is used as a torture method in terrorist and interrogation situations. It is recognised as torture in international law.
Sleep deprivation is considered extremely harmful to physical and mental health. It inflicts serious suffering by systematically breaking down cognitive control, physical health, hormonal production, and immune resistance.
It causes: short-term memory deficits; irrational behaviour and speech; inflexible thinking and loss of agency; and impaired motor skills and delayed reaction times.
Sleep deprivation can cause vivid hallucinations and can lead to full psychosis.
“A mother has no right to heap her own struggle onto her children. It happens that some do. But mothers should shield them as well as they can. Parenting is an active resistance to harm and a promotion of care for your children … ”
Your first two sentences are about a mother’s responsibility to her children. You say that a mother should shield her children as well as she can.
In your third sentence, you use the word “parenting” instead of ‘mothering’.
You say that “Parenting is an active resistance to harm and a promotion of care for your children.” I agree with your sentence here about “parenting”.
A child has two parents. A mother *and* a father. A woman cannot conceive a child by herself. Parenting includes the responsibility of a father as well.
In your comment, you say “parenting” yet you ignore the responsibility of one-half of the child’s parents.
I ignore whatever I don’t consider relevant to the situation.
“The women who killed their children due to postpartum psychosis were described by people around them as very caring, very devoted mothers.”
As you say, prior devotion. The killing tends to nix all that.
The evidence is strongly against LC having psychosis. The fact that other women had it and whether they were described as caring and devoted is irrelevant to whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for her own actions. Whether someone can be described as caring doesn’t mean they can’t or didn’t murder. Just because an action is out of character doesn’t prove psychosis, and just because there is psychosis doesn’t mean there can be no accountability. But Clancy didn’t have postpartum psychosis, so the status of the women you mentioned doesn’t factor in.
Lindsay was only suggested to be suffering from psychosis after getting legal assistance. That and many other facts in the trial demonstrate to me that the claim isn’t genuine, so there is no reason for me to consider the diagnosis in judging her actions. She admitted the killings, the defense stipulated that at trial, and all that’s left is whether we believe she was not criminally responsible due to PPP. Since I see no reason from the evidence to believe her claim of PPP, then for me she is criminally liable and should bear legal consequences.
Those other women, their conditions, their reputations are not relevant and can be ignored.
But, to follow you, I’ve also found that just about anyone can be considered to be acting out of character when they kill someone. Even serial killers have those who think well of them because no one fully knows anyone. It’s very, very rare after the fact that people say, “Oh, yeah. I fully expected Randy to have a deep freezer full of women’s torsos. It was in his character. His wife nagged him. Give him a break.”
“Another aspect you fail to completely address is that of sleep deprivation.”
There is evidence she reported sleep deprivation. But there was no evidence of psychosis. The defense isn’t that she is not guilty due to lack of sleep and the mere fact of insomnia or any other symptoms doesn’t definitively determine psychosis. There is no record of psychosis, postpartum or other, in her background.
“In your comment, you say “parenting” yet you ignore the responsibility of one-half of the child’s parents.”
Patrick had nothing to do with the deaths of his children. He is not responsible. He didn’t murder anyone. He is not on trial. He didn’t strangle the kids, their own mother did with planning and organization. Patrick is not charged and the evidence excludes him from involvement in any crime related to this case.
Mothers and fathers are subsets included in the set “parents”. Every element in the set of mothers is also included in the set of parents. Lindsay was a mother, therefore a parent. Now she’s also included in the set of killers, in the subset of mothers who kill their own children. Times three. We could go on. Venn diagrams abound.
Thank you for this in depth analysis, Mr. Tudor.
If I may, I’m still curious about some things. I would imagine that it must be incredibly difficult for many that are involved in this case, including her family, Patrick’s family & even herself. Do you have an opinion as to why she proceeded with the trial? Why didn’t she just accept her fate?
I’m assuming she wanted to clear her name. But I find that selfish. I wonder if her brain can’t fathom the truth about what happened. Do you think its just easier for her to blame the psychosis?
Based off your findings, I’m also curious if you think she still thinks she did the right thing? Do you think she continues to view the killings as protecting her children?
She doesn’t want to go to prison.
It may help her to hold on to the idea that what she did was driven (on her belief) by psychosis. I suspect she received legal advice to go down the insanity route.
I don’t think she believes she did the right thing.
Thank you, Mr. Tudor. This has been a really tough case for me to reconcile. I appreciate your logical view on it. You given me a better understanding of why & how it happened.
Its also very helpful to hear that you don’t think she believes she did the right thing. Ironically, I’ve found that my empathy for her has been triggered. This is going to be something that haunts her for the rest of her life.
Leigh, remember when you first asked HG’s opinion on Clancy he said if she were a narcissist or psychopath she wouldn’t be bothered, but if she was capable of empathy she’d likely be wracked with guilt?
Hi AA,
I do remember when Mr. Tudor’s response that if she had empathy that she would be wracked with guilt.
I think I need to clear things up. I want LC to get help for her mental illness. I want their to be more help for women who go through this.
I still think she needs to pay for her actions. Her feelings of remorse & guilt aren’t enough of a payment for me.
If I committed this heinous crime, I’d want to spend the rest of my life in prison. I wouldn’t care if I was suffering. I’d see it as justice for the suffering I caused my children.
Dear HG,
SPOIKER ALERT*********This case, and cases like this one, is exactly why I think doctors shouldn’t shove drugs down people’s throats. Drugs are not always the right answer to the problem! Drugs can make things worse, as in this case! If she could have had a break, the kids taken temporarily from her, someone step in and helped her….they would all be alive today! Just one person! One! No one helped her, not really helped her….and the drugs were not the help she needed….Damn docs lining their wallets, selling her the drugs, but really doing nothing to help her. I hope they lose their licenses, but I doubt it because docs cover their own a$$e$….I’ve seen it happen with my mother’s own mental illness. They will most likely get away with it again, I hope not, but with doctors covering for each other, it is more difficult to prove criminal blame. Xx
HG, thank you for your indepth and fascinating conclusion series on Lindsay. No doubt what you covered through your work on her would have surprised some people. A very useful resource to utilise including learning about narcissism and psychopathy from HG Tudor University (not from anywhere else !).
Thank you HG.
You’re welcome AA.
Hello HG, my eyes popped out of my head when I saw seven parts to your conclusion, atop of the other parts. I’ve listened to all of this Tudorscope and thank you very much for it.
You’re welcome.
Dear HG,
Thank you for all your work on the Clancy analysis! I am happy I was right in what I thought she was….Thanks to you, I am getting better at spotting them earlier and earlier! Thank you, HG for the education and knowledge you share with us! It is truly priceless! Xx
SPOILER ALERT….
I meant spotting the difference between narcs and non narcs…wanted to clarify that…xx
Thank you so much, HG, for the enormous amount of work you put into this. Absolutely superb!!! It was incredibly interesting to listen to every part. You covered everything from beginning to end, leaving no stone unturned. An outstanding piece of work! Thank you!
Thank you and you are welcome.