WHAT LINDSAY CLANCY CLAIMED
She claimed that a voice commanded her to kill her children before her attempt at suicide. If true, she would be found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity while strangling her three children.
WHAT THE TRIAL WAS ABOUT
Her trial was not over her triple murder; her trial was over her non-culpability through temporary insanity during the strangulations. She also claimed that the male voice compelling her actions ended when she finished strangling but not quite killing her last victim, 8 month old Callan. Cora was strangled to death in between the timings of Dawson’s and Callan’s strangulations.
THE FACTS
I watched many people testify in this trial – relatives, a nanny, a chaplain, forensic experts, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologist and police officers who arrived at the crime scene when alerted by Lindsay Clancy’s husband, Patrick Clancy. All of these witnesses were of interest in my trying to gain an understanding of what happened and why. Here are significant facts for understanding whether Lindsay Clancy was culpable during the strangling of her children. A psychiatrist, Dr Saathoff and a psychologist, Dr Kirk Heilbrun, examined Lindsay Clancy after the crimes through interviews and a psychological screening test + interviews, respectively. I am now highlighting their testimony because they most feasibly point to the true state of Lindsay Clancy’s mind during the strangulations. They both diagnosed Lindsay Clancy’s mental condition as bipolar 2 disorder, a milder form of bipolar disorder which is a state of wild fluctuations between depression (low mood) and mania (elated mood). Both also considered her without the manic component but more down the depressive end of bipolar. They did not see her symptoms and actions as evidence of a psychotic person. Psychosis is the condition of losing grasp of reality, most often manifest as auditory hallucinations or hearing things that are non-existent. Visual hallucinations are another symptom but a less common manifestation of psychosis. Other psychotic symptoms like immovable delusions can also occur. In this trial, Lindsay Clancy claimed that a voice commanded her to kill her children so psychosis as a feasible explanation for her murderous actions needed to be explored. This required the expertise and experience of psychologists and psychiatrists. Dr Saathoff, with decades of experience working in the prison system with criminals having committed acts like those of Lindsay Clancy, spoke of commanding voices NOT causing loss of agency in a person. He spoke of people being capable of withstanding pressure to commit acts that go against their values. It was also stated that a voice does not stop tormenting a person by his or her fulfilled obedience to the voice’s command. Yet Lindsay Clancy claimed that the voice stopped as soon as she completed its orders with the strangulation of the last child. The mental health experts considered the methodical nature of the crimes to indicate someone in control. For example, before sending her husband out of the house to pick up medications, Lindsay Clancy added one more task – picking up takeout from a restaurant that was relatively far from their house, most likely to keep him away for longer so that she had time to do what she wanted to do. They usually collected takeout from closer restaurants. Who can question Lindsay Clancy over the commanding voice she claims to have heard? I would argue that people with expertise in the area of psychosis are who we should be listening to for verification or otherwise of the validity of her claim. So, the methodical approach to the murders and attempted murder plus the attempted suicide showed forethought, forward planning and control. Expertise in how auditory hallucinations manifest is required and gives us insight into Clancy’s actual, rather than claimed, state of mind. Finally, when Psychiatrist Dr Saathoff was asked by the prosecution lawyer whether he had formed an opinion “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible when she strangled her children, he answered yes, she was criminally responsible.
THE JURY
What an extraordinary demonstration of bullying of one juror, an African American male, by other members of the jury who demanded mercy for Lindsay Clancy on the basis of “postpartum psychosis”. This finding was questioned by experts in the field of psychosis and for more reasons than I have just outlined. The holdout juror had every right to oppose the verdict of innocence for Lindsay Clancy. The eleven jurors who voted in favour of Lindsay Clancy’s innocence had no right to browbeat or shame or publicly lambast the one juror who did not agree. Each juror had a duty to come to a verdict. Each had a right to their verdict. The one juror who questioned Clancy’s innocence had every right to his opinion. In fact he was a hero to not change despite all pressure being put upon him to conform to the group.
THE PUBLIC RESPONSE
The social trend towards “understanding”, condoning and even celebrating the murders by this mother of her children is an alarming wake-up call to what the culture has become. It is true that in nature, in the animal as well as human kingdoms, mothers naturally love and care for their offspring. This has been so throughout history. But now this norm is questioned. It is undoubtedly the norm that normal mothers love their children and have a nurturing, protective spirit towards them. We are led to believe that many mothers hold murderous attitudes towards their children. In only a matter of a handful of years the culture has grown belligerently hostile to sense, reason and virtue, let alone Christianity. Why would this be? Because people have been feeding on lies through general messaging in movies, television and the media including social media that reinforce the idea of women’s rights, the woman never being guilty of wrong and in any case, the self being promoted as at the centre of the universe.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT WOMEN VS MEN
There is a common misunderstanding that women can understand Lindsay Clancy’s point of view but men, what would they know? The real division over this trial is between conservatives, and this includes women conservatives and often Christian conservative women and non-conservatives, both men and women non-conservatives. The reason for this is partly because conservatives hold people individually responsible and accountable for their actions rather than excusing bad and wicked behaviour. Contrary to what you may believe, this elevates all human beings as having the power of agency and accountability. We do not treat people as helpless morons or helpless murderers, hell-bent on getting their own way. This latter is what a conservative classifies as unreasonable and unjustifiable.
THE RENT-A-CROWD POINTS TO BIGGER PLAYERS
Just as the abortion industry burgeoned in the 1960s and 1970s, so now the rent-a-crowd outside the courthouse where Lindsay Clancy was being tried is aiming to put social pressure on the legal system to exonerate women, even in the midst of the most heinous criminal acts, for reasons of postpartum depression and psychosis. So we have grown from no abortion to early-term abortion, to late-term abortion to infanticide and now the pressure is on for the murder of young children to be overlooked. This movement stinks to high heaven. It smacks of a third party driving Western culture towards going light on murder. This protest may have begun organically with just a few women but the pharmaceutical industry soon saw its opportunity to take advantage of the moment, hire a crowd and push its agenda. Of course I could be wrong but that is my suspicion.
CONCLUSION
The protestors outside the courtroom of Lindsay Clancy’s trial are supporting her no matter what she did nor how capable she was of purpose, intent, planning and reason in the committing of the crimes. What is undeniable is that she was capable of horrendous cruelty. Imagine holding down a child to strangle him or her to death. The child would understandably struggle furiously for release yet the crime continued without mercy. Not only that; the same crime was repeated twice more, three separate times in all.
I am no fan of psychiatric medications and do not believe that more mental health provision is the answer to the problem of postpartum depression or psychosis if either of them actually exists. It is true that some women show signs of being down, even dreadfully down following birth but this is rare and could be treated in better ways than medication can provide. The testimonies of a psychiatrist and psychologist tend to have me heavily question the contyrolling postpartum psychosis claim of Lindsay Clancy’s defence case. I also believe that the psychiatrists who treated Lindsay Clancy in the few months before the murders diagnosed her carefully and prescribed drugs they thought appropriate to her condition. It is interesting to note that her first psychiatrist treated her for anxiety rather than depression. Unfortunately, this drug had the side effect on Lindsay Clancy of causing insomnia and this may have led to some depression. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that medications are reached for before any other solutions are sought. This is because no one looks to root causes of anything, be it mental or physical disease. We live in an over-medicated world. Drugs and even supplements are a quick and easy “solution” but they come with complications. Medications can help with some disease states. And I am grateful for anaesthetics every time I go to the dentist. But taking medications habitually for every little thing is a sign of wanting to control life with a pill and I’m sorry, life and young children cannot be so controlled.
Our World Our Faith 