This is strange, we know there was expert testimony that Clancy was not suffering psychosis
My understanding is that the prosecution expert said that she hadn’t given her doctors reason to suspect she was experiencing psychosis.
Ie, he didn’t say that she wasn’t psychotic when she murdered her kids.
The expert then conceded a lot of points to the defence about how psychosis could have set in quickly.
But I might not be recalling properly.
The argument is that the bible doesn’t depict Mary consenting to being impregnated. It’s not clear to me that it would be possible for her to consent. It also isn’t clear how old she was AFAIK. So non-consentual impregnation of a minor is a possible interpretation of the nativity story.
And child rape is a more vernacular way of saying that.