Posted on 09/05/2026 5:26:45 AM PDT by dennisw
Lindsay Clancy supporters donating to her parents' fundraiser have raised more than $1 million with contributions rolling in almost every minute amid a newly increased target.
On Friday, the fundraiser shared an update after Clancy's trial collapsed stating that its new goal is $3 million.
It came as Clancy's grueling six-week trial ended in a mistrial after the 12-person jury was deadlocked because one juror held out on a unanimous acquittal.
The former nurse and mother faced first-degree murder charges in the deaths of her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and baby Callan, eight months.
She was accused of murdering the three children in cold blood before attempting to take her own life in 2023 in her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home.
Clancy's defense argued that the shocking triple-killing was a result of postpartum psychosis and a failure in maternal healthcare.
While the prosecution argued that she was a killer, hundreds of supporters who never met Clancy have begged to differ, offering financial support to her parents Michael, 70, and Paula Musgrove, 73, during the trial.
However, the GoFundMe, launched by total stranger to the family Brandee Mulligan, is replete with messages of support for Lindsay directly, despite its existence also sparking backlash.
Amid speculation that the fundraiser is being investigated, a GoFundMe spokesman confirmed to the Daily Mail that it is 'verified' and reports it is being disabled are 'not accurate.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
I hope there's some sort of punishment for that defense attorney who attacked the juror and thus the jury system. I applaud the juror for not letting her get away with murder.
WIKI
The M’Naghten Rules of 1843 were not a codification or definition of insanity but rather the responses of a panel of judges to hypothetical questions posed by Parliament in the wake of Daniel M’Naghten’s acquittal for the homicide of Edward Drummond, whom he mistook for British Prime Minister Robert Peel. The rules define the defense as “at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong.” The key is that the defendant could not appreciate the nature of their actions during the commission of the crime.
The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane during the commission of a crime, but they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. This legal defense developed in the 19th century and became especially associated with the defense of individuals committing crimes of passion. The defense was first successfully used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife’s lover, Philip Barton Key II. The temporary insanity defense was unsuccessfully pleaded by Charles J. Guiteau who assassinated president James A. Garfield in 1881.
According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases, with 90% of individuals having been previously diagnosed with a mental health condition; when used, the defense has a 26% success rate.
In South Australia, the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides that: 269C—Mental competence
A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of the mental impairment—
(a) does not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) does not know that the conduct is wrong; or
(c) is unable to control the conduct.
269H — Mental unfitness to stand trial
A person is mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of an offence if the person’s mental processes are so disordered or impaired that the person is —
(a) unable to understand, or to respond rationally to, the charge or the allegations on which the charge is based; or
(b) unable to exercise (or to give rational instructions about the exercise of) procedural rights (such as, for example, the right to challenge jurors); or
(c) unable to understand the nature of the proceedings, or to follow the evidence or the course of the proceedings.
more at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
We Sure Do Live In Interesting Times
✝️🙏🛐
I agree. People have lauded him as a great attorney, but he strikes me as a narcissist who wanted a 'victory' for himself ("I won"). Ego is the root of all evil, not money (although it's probably a close second).
I'm not anti-female, I love females. They smell a lot better than guys, for one thing.
And also the reason I took French all through high school - an entire class with just me and a dozen girls....
so will all this loot end up in the hands of the mental hospial she’s been staying in?
_____________________
Her parents will spend it on Lindsey’s lawyers.... Then spend some on themselves like a new SUV and upgrade kitchen and bath
Crazy female killer with a crazy husband who stuck by her.
EVIL.....DEMONIC.....
Men, be done with modern women. By their own defense you can’t trust them.
Please do not paint all women with that crazy brush! There are many of us who are fighting this… quit disparaging ALL women!
I qualified it “modern women”. if you identify as one you’re part of the problem.
Yes! Those who post need to be aware there are many females on FR that are nothing like the lib crazies. Just like there are many males on FR that are not into the trans or child molestation cr@p!
Stop generalizing your judgment.
Start talking to fellow freepers with respect.
No you create a problem when you point your craggy finger at all women! Define ‘modern women’ please.
Judge KEPT SAYNG OVER AND OVER AGAIN...THAT”THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING ...REASONABLE DOUBT, REASONABLE DOUNBT.
TO ME THAT SOUNDS LIKE REASONABLE DOUBT CONCERNING HIS BELIEF IN WHAT DEFENSE WAS CLAIMING AS...DHE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS DOING BECAUSE SHE WAS ...S I C K!!!!
THE MONSTER WAS NEVER, NEVER THAT SICK!.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.