FirstAlerts

Mistrial Declared in Lindsay Clancy Murder Case

A mistrial has been declared in the murder case against Lindsay Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse in Massachusetts, after a jury remained deadlocked.

3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 7, 2026, 10:37 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 2, 2026, 3:55 a.m. ETUpdated Sep 10, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ET
A mistrial has been declared in the murder case against Lindsay Clancy, according to wxxv25.com. Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse in Massachusetts, was with murder and the first-degree murders of her three children, as reported by wxxv25.com, abc13.com, wwaytv3.com, and sanangelolive.com. The case was in , according to wwaytv3.com, while abc13.com reported it was in . The government claims Lindsay Clancy planned the killings and knew right from wrong when she strangled the children, wwaytv3.com reported. Prosecutors argue that Lindsay Clancy knew what she was doing when she strangled her three children, nbcboston.com reported. The government also claims Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children in 2023, according to wxxv25.com. Prosecutors say she knew what she was doing, sanangelolive.com reported. The case is at the charging stage and has not been decided. Clancy has not been found guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 7, 2026, 10:47 p.m. ET

    Lindsay Clancy Charged in Case, Matter Undecided

    Lindsay Clancy has been charged in the case against her, abc13.com reported. The matter is only at the charging stage and remains undecided, as Clancy has not been tried. As with any charge, Clancy is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further details about the charges were not provided in the report.

  2. Sep 7, 2026, 10:37 p.m. ETFirst report

    Lindsay Clancy Charged; Case Remains Undecided

    Lindsay Clancy has been charged, according to ABC13. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided. Clancy is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 610 Sept 2026, 20:22current

    Added the district conflict as a sourced range naming both Plymouth County District Attorney and Plymouth Superior Court.

  2. Version 510 Sept 2026, 14:23

    Added nbcboston.com's account of the prosecution's argument to the sourced range of conduct alleged.

  3. Version 410 Sept 2026, 03:23

    Added the district (Plymouth Superior Court) and the conflicting government claims about planning and knowledge, attributed to wwaytv3.com, wxxv25.com, and sanangelolive.com.

  4. Version 310 Sept 2026, 00:13

    Updated to reflect mistrial declaration.

  5. Version 28 Sept 2026, 18:52

    Updated to reflect that a mistrial has been declared, based on wxxv25.com report.

  6. Version 18 Sept 2026, 02:41

    First published.

  7. Version 18 Sept 2026, 02:37current

    First published.

  8. Version 18 Sept 2026, 02:47current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.