Alleged killer mom Corie Walsh ruled too dangerous to return home — but psychiatrist warns risk can change

An Illinois judge found Corie Walsh too dangerous to release after prosecutors alleged the Frankfort mother posed a threat to her husband and three surviving children after she was charged with murdering her 2-year-old son, Barrett.

But forensic psychiatrists say "dangerousness" is not a permanent label.

Instead, it is a forward-looking assessment that can change as a person's mental condition improves through treatment.

Walsh, 40, remains held without pretrial release after a Will County judge denied her request to leave custody during a detention hearing earlier this month.

LINDSAY CLANCY FIXATION AND ALLEGED PLOT TO POISON HUSBAND EMERGE AS ACCUSED MOM CLAIMS PSYCHOSIS The judge also ordered that Walsh immediately receive psychiatric medication after her attorneys said she had gone days without treatment despite a hospital recommendation that she receive around-the-clock psychiatric care.

Prosecutors argued Walsh should remain behind bars because, beyond the allegations surrounding Barrett's death , she allegedly threatened to kill her husband after her arrest.

The judge agreed, finding Walsh posed too great a danger to release before trial.

LINDSAY CLANCY’S FUTURE COULD REST WITH ‘PROSECUTION DOCTORS’ AS CASE ECHOES INFAMOUS MAINE KILLINGS: EXPERT The ruling raised a broader question that extends beyond Walsh's case: What does it actually mean when a judge determines someone is too dangerous to release? Under Illinois law, judges deciding whether a defendant should remain jailed before trial evaluate the person's current risk to others rather than punish past conduct.

Dr.

Stephen Dinwiddie, a professor of psychiatry at Northwestern University with four decades of forensic psychiatry experience, said psychiatrists approach dangerousness the same way – as a forward-looking assessment rather than a permanent label.

VIRGINIA MAN ACQUITTED BY INSANITY IN KILLING FLEES US DURING 48-HOUR MENTAL HOSPITAL PASS "Obviously we're talking more about what we're afraid they're going to do tomorrow," he said.

"Part of that prediction is based on what they did yesterday ... what they did in the past ... and what they have said they intend to do." Unlike a criminal verdict, which looks backward at what allegedly happened, dangerousness is designed to evaluate the risk a person may pose going forward, Dinwiddie said.

"It's pretty squishy," he said.

"Dangerous to whom? Imminently or long-term? Dangerous in a physical way or something else?" In civil commitment proceedings, judges often decide whether someone should receive treatment over their objections because they present a short-term danger to themselves or others.