FirstAlerts

Woman Charged in Canandaigua Hospital Attack

Alyna Lindenau faces charges of assault and making a terroristic threat stemming from an Aug. 17 incident at F.F. Thompson Hospital.

3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 4:30 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 25, 2026, 3:53 a.m. ETWritten Aug 25, 2026, 5:23 a.m. ET
Alyna Lindenau has been with assault and making a terroristic threat, according to fingerlakes1.com. The charges relate to an Aug. 17 incident at F.F. Thompson Hospital in Canandaigua, where the government alleged she injured an employee and threatened to burn the hospital and kill staff. Lindenau has not yet been tried, and the case remains undecided. As with any charge, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further proceedings have not been scheduled, and additional details were not disclosed.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 25, 2026, 4:53 a.m. ET

    Woman Charged in Canandaigua Hospital Attack

    Alyna Lindenau has been charged with assault and making a terroristic threat, according to fingerlakes1.com. The charges stem from an Aug. 17 incident at F.F. Thompson Hospital in Canandaigua.

    Lindenau has not been tried, and the case remains undecided. As with all criminal charges, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  2. Aug 25, 2026, 4:30 a.m. ETFirst report

    Woman Charged After Hospital Incident in Canandaigua

    Alyna Lindenau has been charged with assault and making a terroristic threat, according to fingerlakes1.com. The charges stem from an Aug. 17 incident at F.F. Thompson Hospital, where the government claims Lindenau injured an employee and threatened to burn the hospital and kill staff.

    Lindenau has been charged but not tried; the charges are allegations and she is presumed innocent. The case is ongoing and has not been resolved in court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 08:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 125 Aug 2026, 08:30current

    First published.

  3. Version 125 Aug 2026, 09:23current

    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.