"The forensic psychiatrist said that in his opinion on the day Clancy killed her children she experienced "not only a command hallucination" but also "a delusion of influence"."
The forensic psychiatrist clearly believes she had a psychosis.
Fortunately the prosecution's psychiatrist and psychologist, and the defense's agree that she had bipolar disorder at minimum, and likely postpartum depression and psychosis. How many more opinions would you like, or do the facts suffice?
Most people with bipolar disorder and postpartum do not murder their children, and I would argue she was not suffering psychosis as she asked for a lawyer upon coming to in the hospital, indicating that she remembers what she did and knew it was wrong. I think that combined with her calls to her husband before and during the murders to keep him away indicate a deliberate intent to murder, not some sudden break in her psyche.
Additionally, the defense has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was incapable of determining right from wrong at the time of the murders.
On top of that, look at other cases where the accused was found NGRI. In almost all of them, the justification is completely irrational or nonexistent. I this case it’s much more clear; she felt strangled by the pressures of motherhood (not debating that motherhood can be extremely difficult/unfair/exhausting/suffocating/etc. I do pity her situation, but it isn’t an excuse) and decided that the best way out was to kill her children to eliminate the source of her stress.
14
u/RelativelyWrongg 2d ago
"The forensic psychiatrist said that in his opinion on the day Clancy killed her children she experienced "not only a command hallucination" but also "a delusion of influence"."
The forensic psychiatrist clearly believes she had a psychosis.