Mom, Who Was Accused of Murdering Her 3-Year-Old Daughter, Dies After Being Found Unresponsive in Jail Cell
Lauren Ingrid Flanigan, the Australian woman accused of fatally stabbing her 3-year-old daughter on May 26, has died
The 32-year-old was found unresponsive in her jail cell on Friday, May 30, and died in a local hospital on Sunday, June 1
An investigation into the incident is currently underwayLauren Ingrid Flanigan, the Australian woman accused of killing her 3-year-old daughter, has died.
Flanigan, 32, was found unresponsive in her cell at the Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre on Friday, May 30, per the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
Officers provided "immediate assistance" before she was transported to the intensive care unit at a local hospital, according to ABC, which cited Queensland police.
Flanigan died on the evening of Sunday, June 1, per the outlet.
In a statement to PEOPLE, Queensland Correctional Service confirmed that an investigation into Flanigan's death is underway. The organization said they will assist authorities in preparing a report for the coroner, as 'is standard practice for all deaths in custody.'
'Support is being offered to the responding officers and their colleagues,' the Queensland Correctional Service added.
Flanigan, a mother of three, was accused of fatally stabbing her eldest daughter, Sophia Rose, in the front yard of their Moore Park Beach home in Central Queensland on Monday, May 26.
Queensland Police Chief Inspector Grant Marcus said authorities received several calls from neighbors, but the child was dead when emergency services found her just before 5 p.m. local time, per 7 News and 9 News.
Flanigan was taken into custody and charged, while a knife that police allege was the murder weapon was also seized, the outlets reported.
'There were two other children at the address at the time, both younger — aged 1 and 2,' Superintendent Brad Inskip said, per News.com.au. 'Neither of them was injured in the incident yesterday, and they're currently being cared for by family members.'
Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.
Inskip told 7 News that there were 'multiple attempts' to revive Sophia before she succumbed to her injuries.
'No doubt it was a horrific scene, it's a terrible, terrible incident for everybody, including the witnesses and the neighbors, including the emergency services police and ambulances who attended and investigators who are doing the ongoing investigation,' Inskip said, per 7 News.
According to Sky News Australia, Flanigan had allegedly posted a number of eerie messages on social media in the days leading up to the fatal stabbing. She allegedly shared a video of a woman with bruises on her arm, captioned, 'Remember your pain as it fuels your purpose.'
She allegedly included lyrics from the heavy metal group Disturbed's song 'Prayer,' which say, 'Another nightmare about to come true. Will manifest tomorrow. Another love that I've taken from you.'
In other posts, Flanigan allegedly referenced training 'like it's war' and being a 'warrior of light,' according to News.com.au. She captioned a photo of her children 'my divine babies,' while other posts allegedly referenced past trauma.
Read the original article on People
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
20 hours ago
Growing fear and confusion in immigrant communities
Alexandra Ribe, a partner at immigration law firm Murray Osorio, joins ABC News Live to discuss the growing fear and confusion in immigrant communities amid ICE raids and mass detention.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Econometer: Should the US ban drug advertising to consumers?
The U.S. is rare among Western nations because it allows pharmaceutical advertising. But a new effort aims to stop it. A bill was introduced in Congress recently that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, from TV to social media, to promote their products. Prescription drug advertising employs a lot of people, directly and indirectly. Billions are spent on advertising each year, employing advertising workers, and 24.4% of ad minutes were for prescription drugs across evening news programs on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and NBC this year through May, according to data from iSpot analyzed by The Wall Street Journal. Proponents of the bill say advertising drives up the cost of prescription goods. Pharmaceutical trade groups have said advertisements serve public health by increasing disease awareness and educating consumers about treatment options. Question:Should the U.S. ban drug advertising to consumers? Economists Alan Gin, University of San Diego YES: Advertising is supposed to give consumers more information about products, but are consumers really in a position to make an informed decision about pharmaceuticals? Those decisions are best left to physicians, who probably have more knowledge about the effectiveness of medications. Consumers can be swayed by slick and repetitive ads into wanting products that might not be the best for them. The money spent on the ads will add to the already high price of the drugs. James Hamilton, UC San Diego NO: Proponents of a ban argue that ads cause people to request unnecessary drugs. But advertisements helped several of my friends learn about options that they didn't know were available. I'm also concerned any time the government dictates what companies are allowed to talk about. It's appropriate to ensure ads do not make inaccurate claims. And doctors should always say no if patients request a prescription that the doctor does not believe is going to help them. Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Advertising specific drugs leads to overprescribing, higher drug and insurance prices, and creates bad incentives, like promoting the most profitable drugs. Because insurance limits consumer costs, more prescription drugs are purchased than needed or used. If the goal is to share important information, industry groups can promote a range of treatments for a condition, leaving discussions of individual products to medical professionals. Drugs also carry risks that are not easily captured in 30 seconds. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research NO: Firms do not advertise to raise costs but engage in marketing to inform the public (especially doctors writing prescriptions) of the drug's usefulness. Without marketing, firms would be unable to get information out necessary to make a drug salable in the first place. The drug's value is decided by the marketplace with consumers driving the entire process. Value of advertising is derived from the value consumers place on the drug, not the other way around. Norm Miller, University of San Diego NO: While most physicians try to keep up on the latest drug research, some do not, thus the need for public information about new drugs. What should be mandatory in ads are their efficacy, side effects and potential for addiction, using FDA verified stats. Lies and exaggerations should be illegal. It should also be illegal for drug manufacturers to incentivize or pay doctors for prescribing any drug, and physicians that take such gifts should lose their license. Ray Major, economist YES: Every ad starts with or ends with "ask your doctor if this drug is right for you." Prescription drug advertisement targets consumers hoping they ask their doctor for a specific brand of drug. Consumers are not qualified to self diagnose symptoms and prescribe drugs to themselves based on information from a commercial. Doctors should be prescribing drugs based on a patients' needs and not influenced by patients who have seen an ad for a prescription drug. David Ely, San Diego State University NO: Commercial speech by pharmaceutical companies that is truthful and informative should be protected. A ban on drug advertising goes too far. A better option is enhanced regulation by the FDA and FTC to ensure that the risks and effectiveness of prescription drugs are accurately communicated in advertising to the public. Under a ban, resources would be shifted to increased promotional efforts targeting health care providers so the cost of prescription goods may not decline. Executives Gary London, London Moeder Advisors NO: I am not a big fan of drug advertisements, but unlike cigarette ads, which clearly promoted sickness for generations, at least drugs are lifesaving. The government should not get involved. However, I have never fully understood why pharmaceutical companies promote directly to patients rather than physicians. They complicate medical care. Be that as it may, these advertisements certainly prop up the cable channels, who need the revenue. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates YES: The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Drug ads often downplay the risks, leading to uninformed decisions. Ads can push consumers toward brand-name drugs, even when cheaper alternatives exist. Also, patients may request unnecessary medications, pressuring doctors to prescribe them. Sure, ads can educate, lead to earlier diagnosis, and boost the economy! But let's limit ads during the first few years of release. Phil Blair, Manpower NO: They are a product like any other. With artificial intelligence, clients and patients can educate themselves on various options just like they do with other products. Of course, they should heed their doctors' advice. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: Drugmakers spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer ads last year. These costs are ultimately reflected in the world's highest per-capita health care bill, with relatively poor health outcomes. Slick spots encourage viewers to "ask your doctor" for brands even when cheaper generics accomplish the same goal. Treatment decisions should be based on clinical evidence, not marketing budgets. Pharma could shift a fraction of this outreach to physician education so that patients will still learn about therapies from an informed source. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: Absolutely. The cost of pharmaceuticals has become prohibitive to patients and providers like hospitals, and the huge cost of advertising is wrapped into those costs. While we want informed patients, pharmaceutical education should be handled by patients' physicians, not a jingle on TV. Advertising also can be misleading and increase the cost of drugs to taxpayers - which is why many countries prohibit advertising. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While I don't enjoy watching the litany of drug advertisements consistently shown on family programming, I don't support a blanket ban. Instead, drug advertising should follow the model currently allowed to cigarette advertising: prohibit ads on TV and radio but allow other forms of advertising with appropriate limitations and regulations. While raising awareness of available treatments can be beneficial, the current barrage of drug advertising is excessive and likely leads to over prescription and increased health care costs. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Brian Albert, Jennifer McCabe, more witnesses speak out after Karen Read verdict
In the hours since Karen Read was found not guilty of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe, several key witnesses from both trials have broken their silence on the verdict. Michael Proctor, the former Massachusetts State Police lead investigator on the case, who testified in the first trial and was later fired for misconduct stemming from the case, spoke out in interviews on ABC's "20/20" and NBC's "Dateline" that aired on June 18 and 19, respectively. A group of O'Keefe's friends, including Brian and Nicole Albert and Jennifer and Matt McCabe, also shared their thoughts in an interview with ABC News that aired on June 20. The group earlier called the verdict "a devastating miscarriage of justice" in a statement released to USA TODAY. Both Proctor and the Albert and McCabe families were at the center of the theory presented by Read's defense team about a possible police cover-up in O'Keefe's death. They have consistently denied the allegations. A Massachusetts jury on June 18 found Read not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. She was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence and sentenced to one year of probation. Karen Read timeline Key dates in John O' Keefe murder case Brian Albert says he 'would have taken a bullet' for John O'Keefe In an interview with ABC News that aired on June 20, Brian Albert, a retired Boston police officer who owned the home where O'Keefe's body was found on the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, said he and his family "did the civic duty" in this case. "The criminal justice system has let us down at every turn, and yesterday was the final letdown," he said. Brian Albert also said the theories that he was involved in O'Keefe's death are "preposterous and silly." He responded to lingering questions about why he did not go outside on the morning O'Keefe's body was found, calling it "ridiculous." "I would have taken a bullet for John O'Keefe because he was a fellow cop," Brian Albert said. During the interview, Jennifer McCabe, who was with Read when O'Keefe's body was found, also spoke about the "hos (sic) long to die in cold" Google search she made that became a contentious piece of evidence in both trials. She has maintained that she made the search because Read asked her to after they found O'Keefe's body, while the defense alleged she made the search hours before he was found. "Doesn't matter how much I say about it, people will not believe it," she said. Michael Proctor says crude texts 'don't define me as a person' Proctor's personal text messages, many of which expressed crude comments about Read, came under scrutiny during the first trial. He was later fired for misconduct stemming from the case and broke his silence in a series of interviews after Read's verdict was announced, after he was not invited to take the stand in her second trial. He said in an interview with ABC News that he developed negative feelings toward Read "as the case went on." "When you have a fellow police officer around my age, two kids of his own, it generates emotion," he said. "And I expressed those emotions in a negative way, which I shouldn't've." Proctor added, "They are what they are, they don't define me as a person." In an interview on NBC's "Dateline," Proctor laughed at the theory that he was involved in a possible cover-up. "I laugh because it's such a ridiculous accusation," he said. "There's not one piece of evidence or fact to support that." Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at
