Plenty of people who kill their kids are of sound mind while they do it. Often, they benefit from it. Some do it to hurt a spouse, some for insurance money, some because they're abusers (more than 400 kids a year in the US), some for attention. There's always something in it for them, and it makes horrific logic to kill their child. This is a unique case and the defense is arguing something pretty unique, actually.
Doing something monstrous does not require mental illness or legal insanity. It requires making a choice to do something terrible. Let's not further stigmatize mental illness any further by pretending that's what you need for child murder.
Well, yes, that's probably true, though it's not merely a matter of being mentally unwell. A person will generally still be culpable for their actions despite any mental illness provided they understand the likely outcomes of their actons, & they understand the difference between right & wrong at the time of committing the crime. I'm generalizing a little here, the rules vary by state, of course.
Even if they dont it's not like insanity is a catch all, usually gets you put in a mental health facility. If what I hear from random fuck off strangers is correct, those can sometimes be worse than prisons. Take that with a lot of salt, though.
The fact that she had her husband go to the store so that she could do it says there was some bit of planning and that she understood it was wrong.
It seems pretty clear that she was just depressed and wanted to kill her children and herself in murder-suicide. Psychosis would tend to be a scenario where the person doesn’t think what they are doing is bad or out of the norm, nor is it planned and they wouldn’t commit suicide while doing it.
People can definitely intentionally but delusional do things that they'd normally understand would get themselves killed, like running into traffic. People have also committed extreme self-harm seemingly without caring about the pain or risks while in psychosis. Severe delusional paranoia, if that is a claim that can be supported, would seem to explain the secrecy.
I feel compelled to trust the good people of the jury and legal system to do their actual jobs (or catch each other when they are not) and establish the truth and determine appropriate consequences rather than worry about the outcome while I have no power to affect it.
Her doctors had her on some absolutely bonkers medications that do not mix well and do not work as expected quickly. They take time with regular doses to build in the body. They were cut short and mixed with other meds that do not help the brain at all. She was MADE sick by bad doctors.
No, she repeatedly ignored doctor's advice that SSRIs and other medications take months to go into effect, and she wanted a quick fix.
Which I don't blame her for, when one is suffering, patience is difficult.
But she wasn't following the on or off ramps and was complaining of side-effects that are correlated but not necessarily directly caused (i.e. Insomnia with Zoloft.)
She also was not taking the medication as directed, which is often worse than not taking them at all.
It also really simplifies just what these medications do. There is no "don't kill your kids" pill or dosage that she could have taken.
The source on that is her husband, who claims she admitted to it after falling out the window with her throat cut, even though she had severe injuries and needed multiple surgeries to speak again. The DA, a personal friend of the husband, charged her in less than 24 hours on his word alone. There wasn't an investigation. His DNA and fingerprints are all over the weapons - hers aren't. The drugs she was knocked out with, which were crushed up in her drink, were in his car. He also had a mistress who he is now starting over with. He's been caught in multiple lies already. Hasn't shown any emotion whatsoever about losing his family. Said his dead kids - 5 year old, three year old, 8 month old - were "great people, well liked".
The trial is not whether to establish if she did it or not. She is not claiming she did not do it. She is seeking not guilty based on psychosis. You can theorize all you want, but this entire trial is moving forward on the basis that she did it. The only two outcomes for her is jail or a mental hospital.
Sometimes that's the best defense strategy when you're getting railroaded by a corrupt system. Innocent people make deals all the time to reduce an inevitable sentence. The DA is friends with the husband.
I don’t think she was, I think she was really drunk. However, people claiming it was the people in the house who killed him and framed her with no motive and none of their stories have slipped up once
Lindsay Clancy had like 32 prescriptions filled within a few months. Many medications increase suicidal and homicidal tendencies and she was struggling BEFORE them, so there's also the question of how overmedicated she was with poor oversight.
Which is part of why im confused with this case. If it were true, and she loved her kids, and was a great mom why is she going through with all of this. If this was me, and I had a psychotic break and killed the people who matter most in my life, I'm guilty. send me to jail and hide the key. Also im unaliving myself the second I see the chance. This just seems odd shes going through an entire trial.
She absolutely can, plead guilty. Go to jail. Unalive. Who the hell would want to live after killing those closest to you? I sure as hell wouldnt care what others thought in that moment. My world would be over I wouldn't be thinking about anything other than the sharpest item in my vicinity is.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you that a perfectly possible scenario that night was that she killed her boyfriend while drunk driving. However, if you spent even 10 minutes looking at the evidence presented and the conduct of the investigation, I cannot believe you’d say with your whole chest that they PROVED she killed him. You cannot put people in jail just because it’s the most likely scenario. They kept evidence in freaking solo cups in grocery bags for weeks!! That is not how you store evidence for trial. If the police had actually conducted a thorough and unbiased investigation, this would have gone down entirely differently. However, they objectively did not conduct a thorough investigation and objectively did not follow protocol for preserving evidence in anticipation of trial. One of the officers was asked on the stand if he knew the procedures for chain of custody of evidence and he literally said that he did not recall.
Edited to clarify that this comment is about the Karen Read trial and has absolutely nothing to do with Lindsey Clancy.
Yeah that case was fumbled so hard by the police department. The texts that came out of that from Proctor and other officers were insane. That entire department are complete buffoons
Fair point. At your suggestion, I deleted my comment that described the legal justification for Lindsay Clancy’s case so as not to be confused with Karen Reads case
Two things. First, Lindsey Clancy has admitted she killed her children, but in MA they still have to prove (1) that she killed them and (2) that she knew what she was doing when she did it. You’re wrong that she has plead guilty. She has only confessed to the crime and it is still possible that the prosecution might not be able to prove to the jury, even with her confession, that she actually killed her children. You should listen to her lawyer. All he has said is that she admitted to killing them, not that she actually killed them.
Second, I was talking about Karen Read in the comment you are replying to. She was found guilty only of drunk driving and was not found guilty of killing her boyfriend. Also, the police involved in that case mishandled that investigation beyond belief and at this point I think it’s actually impossible to know what actually happened because of their misconduct.
It’s not a matter of defending her, it’s a matter of acknowledging that that case was horrifically mishandled by the cops and prosecution. Because of that, they failed to prove that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the consequence of fucking up and mishandling evidence.
Amen. No one wanted to convict an attractive white woman. I’m not sure if she murdered her boyfriend, but she sure is shit is criminally responsible for his death. I would have found her guilty of manslaughter.
Casey Anthony checking in, also Jodi Arias checking in.
No seriously I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s as much attractiveness as affluentness because both of those women were pretty good looking and everyone and their mother wanted to see them get the chair.
In Casey Anthony's case, that was 100% on the prosecutor arrogance for going for too high of a charge. The prosecutor was going for first degree murder, which they couldnt fully prove. Casey's entire defense was admitting to 2nd degree murder, if the prosecutor would have gone for the lesser charge they would have had no problem convicting.
casey anthony was let off because the state's attorneys were incompetent and she had a decent lawyer. jodi will die in prison, men just thought she was hot.
Bfr, she did not hit that man. Life 360 showed him climbing a flight of stairs after she dropped him off. Cops didn’t even investigate the people in the house cause most of them were their friends
The idea that Karen Read was acquitted just because of her attractiveness is horrifying. The MA police involved in that case screwed up so bad that they got fired and investigated by the FBI when it was still an organization that investigated crimes other than voter fraud and antifa. If the only reason she was acquitted was because of her looks then we are cooked as a society. Any person, no matter how ugly or how male, accused of a crime that was investigated the way the Read case was should be acquitted. I promise you, if you’re accused of a crime and you’re done that dirty by the police, I’d acquit you too.
Edited to add that I apologize in advance if you happen to also be an attractive white woman. I’m not trying to make any assumptions about your gender or looks.
It's frustrating because the jury answered in interviews why they chose not guilty. The simple boring answer is that they followed the science (no evidence he was hit by a car) and believed the police fucked up the investigation on top of that degenerate lead investigator.
I think she got way too drunk and backed into him. I don’t think she meant to kill him, but that doesn’t change the fact her actions lead to his death.
You saw the car accident pirrouette and decided that sounded legit? The fact that he had zero injuries consistent with a car accident, but 100% consistent with a bar fight and dog attack? And went, yep that's a car?
Doesn't matter if she's attractive or not. Compare crimes on television and you will always see the white criminals pictures like they are at a barbecue and just a mugshot of any black criminals. Been like this since the birth of television and still happening today.
I know Clancy did it but why do you think Karen did it? Her boyfriend’s Life360 showed him going into the house and climbing a flight of stairs, his injuries are also not consistent with that of a car accident. Police officers admitted to tampering with evidence on the stand. (Mirroring camera footage to show the wrong tail light)
The state's problem was that the science wasn't on their side. The medical examiners said there was no evidence he was hit by a car and their accident reconstructionist couldn't figure out how you can hit someone so hard you break a tail light into pieces, rocket spin them across the road, knock them out of their shoes without breaking an arm.
There were multiple accident experts involved, this is what I mean by the legal system sucks, she has enough money to hire her own and obfuscate the logic and factual analysis to the point that you yourself have come here repeating it, just like OJ was able to
We know that Lindsay Clancy killed her children. That isn't the purpose of the trial. Instead, they're trying to determine whether she was insane to the degree that she wasn't legally culpable when she did it. My understanding is she will be in an institution for the foreseeable future, even if she's found innocent by reason of insanity.
You can beat someone up without intent on killing them. They were all drunk, they beat his ass, he died, they freaked and dumped him in the snow then deleted everything.
The fact that you think “on accident” is somehow incorrect is fucking stupid. It might not be the norm in your country, but it’s been the norm in the US for generations. I don’t think I’ve encountered a living generation that doesn’t; even my Silent Gen grandpa does.
The fact you’re choosing to die on this hill after he’s changed it to ‘by accident’ and added a comment saying he meant ‘by accident’ is genuinely hilarious. Keep up the good work and thank you for your service.
How would she have busted her taillight exactly? That’s even more suspicious, hitting a human at low speed shouldn’t damage your taillight, the fact that there is such a convenient piece of “exonerating” evidence (that is more likely to have been deliberately placed than accidentally produced given said evidence’s physical properties) is really counter-evidence.
Multiple things can be true at once. She did drive drunk and probably hit him in the snow, but he was beaten and bitten and his device had a fall alert.
It's crazy to think if this was such an open and shut case that the family would delete everything
Huh? I'm not implying she worked with the cops, I'm implying the second thing you said. It's very possible that when she returned to get him she also hit him with her car on TOP of the other stuff that happened.
Edit: I also don't think the tail light is broken from the hit because it doesn't make sense for only that to be broken and nothing else. Crash testers couldn't even replicate it
I think Karen Read probably did it but the investigation was also terrible, so I'm not sad that the state lost. The state should have to make a very strong case that wasn't clearly biased, especially when a cop is killed and they're out for blood.
Because the alternate explanations are that a bunch of people all managed to pull off this murder in the house, managed to drag his body out to the snow leaving no trail, and managed to frame Karen because…why not? Oh, and they lucked out that she was drunk to the point of not remembering what happened and leaving angry voicemails.
Occam’s Razor suggests she was plastered and hit him, possibly by accident. There were fragments of her taillight at the scene
Occam's razor is a terrible philosophy to apply with crime. They had crash experts try and try to recreate an impact with okeef that would leave glass like that and they couldn't. All it does is prove she was there and she hit something.
And that doesn't explain the extremely weird shit that happened prior to her arriving. It's very strange the people in the house could've had a slam dunk case if what happened were true
My inability to spell a last name doesn’t change the fact that a blackout drunk accidentally killed someone, or that officer O’keefe’s phone showed he never entered the house
727
u/SandalsResort 13d ago
Oh she 100% did it.
And to really upset my fellow white women, I think Karen Reed did it too.