Post

More from @SarahisCensored

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 6

DAY 4 REPORT: Karmelo Anthony Trial - June 4th, 2026 🚨

Day four of testimony focused heavily on witnesses who were present at the track meet, coaches who knew Austin Metcalf personally, emergency response efforts immediately after the stabbing, and additional evidence presented by the prosecution.

The day included emotional testimony from Austin’s coaches, eyewitness testimony regarding the moments before and after the stabbing, photographs, physical evidence, and the playing of one of the 911 calls.

🧵

The first witness was a video expert. The Frisco ISD footage was clarified, and zoomed in.

You can see a tent on the upper right hand side of the screen. You can see a few figures under the tent. It’s dark so it’s still hard to see. You see one Individual pushed back (not far) and bounce back quickly. A couple seconds later, that same individual can then be seen with that the video expert called a “spotlight”. The Spotlight was over Karmelo. You can see Karmelo run up above the tent, then over to the side. He slows down to a walk. And begins walking through the people towards the entrance. He then begins to run again. Multiple individuals run after him and point at him. Karmelo then turns around and walks back towards the track. You see an individual walk up to him and put his arms around him. Seemingly to keep him still. Then an officer arrives and detained him.

A video was also shown of Austin entering the stadium and Karmelo being let out by police 15 minutes later. This is how quickly this happened.

It was also made clear by the video expert that there is no drawback by Austin under the tent when the incident occurred. Meaning it does not look like he drew back to punch him or attack him. It was a simple push forward.

Next witness was was Robert Starr. Head track coach for Memorial high school. Also in charge of strength and conditioning for the football team and assistant coach.

He was the position coach for Austin and Hunter he said that he knew Austin for a year. And has now known Hunter for two years.

Starr made it clear that track meet policy is “the Tent marks your spot”. There are only about four coaches per 40 kids. Spots are designated by tent because coaches can’t keep track of everyone. So the tent is very much like “your bench.”

He mentioned proximity control multiple times. Which meant keeping a coach per tent at all times. Tents have snacks, backpacks, and it is standard practice to make sure they stay protected.

He stated that specifically for Frisco ISD, tents are meant for one team and one team only. Because of the valuables kept under the tent, it is a big deal to keep everyone away from your tent.

He stated that you also do not go to someone else’s tent uninvited

He also stated that policy is “weapons are not allowed of any shape or size”. Most people would never assume that anyone would bring a weapon to track meet.

He also stated that students have to sign a code of conduct that agrees to this policy.

He stated that Austin and Hunter were throwers. He stated that Memorial high school was the host school for the track meet that day. Meaning, they were in charge of everything. Which meant an extra burden on coaches. He knew that morning that he would be pulled into many directions. He specifically assigned his throwers a.k.a. Austin and Hunter to take leadership positions which meant putting up the tent and moving equipment.

He sent a text to Austin that morning that said I need you to step up and be a leader today.

He also stated that there was no rain delay. He stated that it looked like it would rain, but track was still running as usual.

He was then asked what happened on April 2

Read 5 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 4

My full Karmelo Anthony Trial Report: Last Day of Jury Selection- The Defense’s Attempt to Tell Its Story Before Trial 🚨

The third and final day of jury selection in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial was tense long before anyone took their seat in the courtroom.

When I arrived at the courthouse this morning, it was immediately apparent that tensions between supporters of Karmelo Anthony and those following the case from Austin Metcalf’s side remained high.

At one point, supporters of Karmelo Anthony reportedly refused to even share the same bathroom with me. I was also told that one individual allegedly stated that they wanted to break my glasses in half.

The tension continued outside the courtroom. As people began lining up to enter, I was one of the first in line when one Karmelo Anthony supporter walked directly in front of me. In an unnecessary outburst, she claimed she was simply taking her “appropriate place” in line - a place she stated she was entitled to occupy despite arriving after I did.

That atmosphere would continue throughout the day.

This day was about the attorneys attempting to identify prospective jurors who could or could not follow specific legal principles.

The questioning began with the prosecution.

Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell spent much of his time discussing the fundamentals of criminal law and the responsibilities of jurors.

He asked prospective jurors about the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, the defendant’s constitutional right not to testify, punishment ranges, media exposure, and whether jurors could set aside their personal opinions and decide the case solely on the evidence presented inside the courtroom.

He clarified the difference between murder, which is the intentional or knowing of the taking of a life. He also clarified that in the state of Texas there is nothing in the law about premeditation. Meaning, you do not have to prove premeditation in order to convict anyone of murder. He also clarified that if someone said that they did not mean to, that it does not mean that they did not commit murder. And that there is nothing in Texas law that says you have to prove that it was premeditated.

Several jurors admitted they had already heard about the case.

Some had seen media coverage.

Some had discussed it with family members.

Others acknowledged they had formed initial impressions but believed they could set those impressions aside and evaluate only the evidence presented at trial.

The prosecution also explored whether prospective jurors could consider the entire range of punishment available under Texas law if a conviction occurred.

Some struggled with the idea.

Others admitted they would have difficulty convicting a “young” defendant regardless of the evidence.

One prospective juror, Juror 142, made a particularly notable statement when he said, “I don’t know that I would feel right putting a brother in jail.” Many observers viewed that comment as a clear indication of potential bias and believed it should have been immediate grounds for removal from the jury pool.

There were also extensive discussions regarding race, public reaction, and concerns that jurors might face criticism depending on the verdict they ultimately reached.

Mitchell repeatedly emphasized that jurors would be required to follow the law regardless of outside pressure. He also said that he has “never had to have the conversation of race with jurors before”.

The prosecution’s questioning largely focused on identifying bias and ensuring jurors understood their legal obligations.

He asked the jurors, “would knowing someone’s race affect how you choose? Can you reach a verdict based on law and evidence?” One juror said that it was “important to separate behavior from the person.”

Continue for part 2 👇

Self-defense was also brought up.

Mitchell made several things clear that I believe are worth noting.

He talked about self-defense.

He made it clear that words alone are not enough for self-defense. He stated that you cannot claim self-defense if you provoke the event.

“You cannot talk trash, get someone to punch you, and then take a life.”

This is not how self-defense works.

He also discussed something called sudden passion, which is when someone is in such a state of emotion because something horrific just happened. For example, a ranch hand finding someone molesting his daughter in the barn. This would be considered sudden passion if he decided to take quick action to end someone’s life.

He also made it very clear that sudden passion is never based on someone’s age. Which means that you cannot claim that he is “just a kid” and then claim sudden passion.

Read on 👇

Then came the defense.

And that is where the day became significantly more controversial.

Defense attorney Mike Howard spent much of his questioning discussing self-defense law.

There is nothing unusual about discussing legal concepts during voir dire. Attorneys routinely ask jurors whether they can follow the law as instructed by the court.

What became unusual was how closely some of Howard’s hypotheticals appeared to mirror the facts that many people already associate with this case.

Rather than discussing self-defense in broad or generic terms, Howard repeatedly described situations that seemed remarkably similar to what the defense is expected to argue happened on the day Austin Metcalf was killed.

He discussed individuals being asked to leave an area.

He discussed remaining somewhere a person is legally allowed to be.

He discussed self-defense.

He discussed the lack of a duty to retreat.

He discussed carrying knives, specifically knives with blades under 5½ inches.

Most notably, Howard spent time discussing the legality of bringing a knife to a school athletic event.

That immediately caught the attention of many people in the courtroom because one of the central facts already known publicly is that this case arose from an incident at a Frisco ISD track meet.

Howard repeatedly focused on knife laws, asking jurors about blade length and discussing circumstances under which carrying a knife might be lawful.

The line of questioning appeared to suggest that a knife with a blade under a certain length could legally be carried into a public area or athletic event.

This was particularly interesting considering the incident occurred on Frisco ISD property, where signs were posted prohibiting weapons.

To many observers, it felt less like a hypothetical and more like an attempt to begin laying the foundation for a future self-defense argument.

That perception appeared to create frustration for the prosecution. I visibly watched prosecutors looking at one another with expressions of confusion and frustration.

Howard told jurors that Texas law regarding weapons and open carry also extends to knives, provided they are carried in non-prohibited places. He also stated that it is legal to bring a knife to a high school sporting event as long as the blade is under 5½ inches.

I’ll be honest. Around this point, I began asking myself: Is he talking about the case? Do the jurors think he is talking about the case?

It was also around this time that the prosecution began objecting.

I have never seen that happen during jury selection.

Then Howard presented another scenario.

“Let’s say you’re at a park and I walk up uninvited. I’m asked to leave, but I refuse to leave. How many of you believe I’m in the wrong?”

The questioning almost seemed combative with some of the prospective jurors.

At that point, there was another objection and the attorneys were asked to approach the bench.

The microphones were turned off.

Conversations occurred off the record.

At multiple points throughout Howard’s questioning, it was apparent that concerns were being raised regarding the direction of the discussion.

The issue was not that self-defense was being discussed.

The issue was how closely some of the scenarios appeared to resemble facts that are expected to be disputed during trial.

Jurors are not supposed to hear opening statements during voir dire.

They are not supposed to hear attorneys argue their case before evidence is presented.

Yet several people in attendance appeared genuinely confused as to whether Howard was asking hypothetical questions or beginning to explain the defense theory itself.

Read 7 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

May 17

🚨Plano ISD, Texas 🚨 - Internal records obtained through a lawsuit filed by Citizens Defending Freedom Show that Plano ISD knew about Severe mold contamination at Murphy Middle School - and DELAYED Informing Parents!

The documents include:
- Internal emails
- Work orders
- IAQ testing requests
- Mold remediation invoices
- Photographs from inside the school

School started on August 12, 2025.

By August 18 - LESS than two weeks later - district work orders were already documenting:
- Excessive humidity
- Indoor air quality concerns
- Active leaks
- Mold growing on classroom items

One work order specifically references a classroom American flag that was “less than 2 weeks old” already growing mold.

The records also include photographs appearing to show mold growing on:
- Classroom flags
- Chairs
- Furniture
- Classroom materials

Another internal email chain shows a leaking ceiling work order being marked “COMPLETE” at 7:53am.

But at 11:13am, a district employee responded:

“This WO was marked as completed and it is not. It is still dripping water and nothing looks like it has been done.”

The records also show district employees urgently requesting indoor air quality testing.

One email states:

“Please rush this requisition. We need to have Farmer do the IAQ test ASAP.”

Then came October 3, 2025.

A remediation report from Blackmon Mooring/BMS CAT states representatives met with Plano ISD at Murphy Middle School at 9pm regarding mold damage involving:

- 43 classrooms/offices/labs
- HVAC contamination
- Mold contamination of structure and contents
- Drywall and carpet removal
- Furniture remediation

But according to the records, parents were NOT NOTIFIED the school would shut down until AFTER 11pm that night - forcing families to scramble for childcare and work accommodations for the following week.

The financial records are equally significant.

Invoices tied to the remediation total OVER $615,000, including:

- $250,000
- $197,145.59
- $118,566.50
- $50,021.71

How long did Plano ISD know the situation was this serious before the public was informed?

Citizens Defending Freedom deserves credit for securing these records after having to SUE Plano ISD for them. According to a source, they were unable to recover attorney fees despite forcing disclosure of the documents.

Parents trusted their children were walking into safe classrooms!

Plano ISD appears to have known Murphy Middle School’s HVAC system needed major repairs for at least two months while mold issues were ongoing throughout the summer. Records show a nearly $25,000 purchase order dated August 4, 2025, for HVAC technician labor tied to evaluating and repairing outside air handlers at Murphy MS, along with internal emails approving the work. If the district knew the HVAC system was failing badly enough to require substantial repairs for months before school started, why were students and staff allowed back into the building before the issue was fully addressed and parents properly informed?

Receipts applied to original post

Read 7 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

May 15

REPORT w/EXCLUSIVE INFO: Autistic 13-Year-Old Was Left Begging for Help After Brutal School Attack While Administrators Focused on Getting a Forced Statement Instead of Medical Care 🚨

This will be another exclusive thread.

Please read all parts of the story. This mother and daughter deserves to have their story told. And if you can, please donate to her fundraiser. What happened is brutal. I privately watched the video of the as*ault. We don’t have to live like this. 👇

Northside ISD, San Antonio, Texas - A San Antonio mother says her 13-year-old autistic daughter was brutally beaten by multiple students at Sul Ross Middle School in Northside ISD after months of reported bullying - and according to sources I interviewed, school administrators left the injured girl begging for help while staff focused on obtaining a written statement instead of immediate medical treatment.

I have obtained documents, medical records, emails, photographs, interview transcripts, and screenshots related to the case. After reviewing the material, a disturbing picture emerges of what Maddison McDonald experienced before, during, and after the February 26, 2026 attack.

According to the family, 7th grader Maddison McDonald had repeatedly reported bullying and threats to school staff for months leading up to the assault. I obtained emails showing school staff discussing counseling resources for Maddison weeks before the attack due to emotional distress and bullying concerns. Additional records I reviewed show Maddison had documented autism and ADHD diagnoses - diagnoses the family says the school is now attempting to claim were never provided!

Despite the documented concerns, the family says nothing meaningful was done to stop the escalating harassment.

According to a source I interviewed for over an hour regarding the incident, Maddison had submitted multiple written reports about bullying to administrators during the school year.

The source even alleges one administrator ripped up several of those reports in front of Maddison and accused her of “causing drama.”

Then on February 26, the situation escalated into violence.

According to the family and Maddison’s handwritten statement completed after the attack, Maddison was walking to class when multiple older students approached her from behind.

The statement says Maddison told them to “leave me alone” and “f*** off” before several students grabbed her, dragged her to the ground by her hair, punched her, kicked her, and broke her glasses during the assault. (I have seen this video footage)

The mother informed me that students had already begun filming before the attack even started.

According to a source, the family was told there were multiple students recording from different angles and that the assault appeared coordinated.

The mother stated that students had “laid in wait” for Maddison and intentionally positioned themselves in order to target her.

I have also obtained photographs that show injuries to Maddison’s scalp near her ear where the family says large chunks of hair were ripped out during the assault.

Additional photographs show Maddison later hospitalized wearing a neck brace while being evaluated for head, neck, and back injuries.

The mother says Maddison suffered severe pain, swelling to her face, trauma to her scalp, and complications connected to a prior traumatic brain injury that already caused migraines and neurological issues.

But what happened afterward inside the school office may be even more disturbing.

According to my source, Maddison - injured, crying, and begging for help - was denied immediate medical attention for over an hour while administrators pressured her to write a statement accepting partial blame for the attack.

The mother stated that Maddison repeatedly begged for her mother, cried that she was in pain, and asked for medical help while sitting in the office.

“She was crying and begging for help,” the mother told me. “She kept saying, ‘Can I just have my mom please? I’m hurting?’”

I have also been informed that one administrator stood over Maddison demanding she rewrite portions of her statement because Maddison had admitted to telling the students to “f*** off” before the assault.

According to an interview with one of my sources, administrators insisted Maddison had “started it” because of those words, despite claims that the students had approached her from behind and attacked her anyway.

School staff initially failed to contact Maddison’s mother after the assault occurred.

The mother says Maddison herself managed to contact her using her damaged cellphone after one of the students allegedly stomped on it during the attack.

Maddison called her mother, crying and saying:
“Mom, they hurt me. They jumped me. Please help me.”

When the mother arrived at the school, staff initially refused to allow her to see her daughter.

The family claims they eventually called EMS themselves after realizing the school had not done so.

According to another source, even EMS personnel allegedly had to tell one administrator to move out of the way while they attempted to evaluate Maddison.

The mother informed me that staff appeared more concerned about obtaining a written statement than addressing her daughter’s injuries.

The family also claims school officials later attempted to minimize the incident publicly.

As you can see in this infuriating statement, Maddison felt pressured into apologizing for being attacked.

Read 9 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

May 11

🚨EXCLUSIVE: 🚨 Woman Convicted of Forging Medical Credentials and Fraudulently Treating Patients - Including Children - Now Running TPUSA-Connected K-12 School after Name Change and Zero Transparency Regarding Her Felony Record 🚨

Some of you may remember my exclusive reporting on Hood County in the past. A man was arrested for posting a meme. Well, buckle up buttercup. Now we have more coming out of Hood County and it’s not good.

Hood County- Granbury, Texas - A woman by the name of “Shawna” has recently launched a K-12 school in Granbury, Texas. The school also appears publicly connected to TPUSA Faith organizing circles through local Hood County faith and political event materials listing Shawna Keomisy as “Director TP Faith Hub of Hood County.”

Federal court records have now surfaced, involving the woman identified as the school’s founder and head administrator.

Public records reviewed by me and my team show multiple name variations associated with Shawna, including Shawna Michelle Gunter, Shawna Michelle Keomisy, Shawna Michelle Oconnell/O’Connell, Shawna Boswell, Shawna M. Gunter, Shawna M. Oconnell, and Shawna Oconnor Gunter.

I then matched this with Maryland issued social security information.

Turning Point Academy of Granbury publicly identifies “Shawna” as Founder and Head of School.

Federal court records show that Shawna Michelle Gunter pleaded guilty in a federal criminal case involving wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

According to federal records and plea materials, Gunter falsely represented herself as a physician assistant! And used altered or fabricated medical credentials, obtained employment at a pediatric medical practice, and provided medical care without a valid medical license or proper medical training.

Federal filings state the conduct involved HUNDREDS of pediatric patients and prescriptions.

The records further state that Gunter fraudulently treated patients - including infants and children - while operating under false medical credentials. Between July 5, 2013 and August 18,2013, Gunter worked as a physician's assistant under the direct supervision of Dr. Ramirez.

Between August 19, 2013 and August 29, 2013, Gunter saw pediatric patients without any direct supervision. During this time she diagnosed and treated over 200 infants and children, including for sick visits, ADHD follow-ups, newborn visits and routine physicals. During she issued over 400 prescriptions for controlled substances.

Court records show the federal case proceeded under United States v. Shawna Michelle Gunter. Sentencing filings show a federal sentencing hearing was ultimately scheduled before U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett.

Federal records also indicate the court previously expressed concern about community safety prior to sentencing and referenced a documented history of deceptive conduct tied to the case.

According to my sources, parents were not informed about the founder’s federal criminal history before enrolling their children in Shawna’s school.

It appears that TPUSA does NOT complete criminal-background checks for their leadership. All leadership, staff, volunteers, and anyone with access to children should be highly vetted!

TPUSA needs to address this. I will be reaching out as a follow up.

Sentencing order

Letter to council

Read 10 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Apr 30

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Innocent Student Framed by Assistant Principal and Arrested by Frisco ISD, TEXAS 🚨

A Multi-Part Series: I understand that threads on not popular on X right now. But trust me when I say, you are going to want to read this.

Part 1 - According to my detailed interview and supporting documentation I obtained from the family, a high school student in Frisco Independent School District was accused of a felony, arrested in front of his peers, and publicly humiliated …despite evidence indicating he did not commit the alleged offense. Even more troubling, school officials appear to have known it!

The family says Kyaan was arrested because of a mistake by assistant principal Kristan Williams- and that instead of correcting it, officials doubled down, manipulated evidence and shifted the blame onto him.

The situation began in September, 2025, with what should have been a non-issue. A group of students were sitting in the school library, taking a break from college applications, joking around and creating what they referred to as a “shark list”- a harmless list of students they thought were attractive or socially successful. At the suggestion of two girls, the group briefly made a similar list for female students. It was immature, but by all accounts not malicious. The student at the center of this case, Kyaan, wrote only two names - none of which belonged to the student who would LATER complain. He didn’t take a photo of the list. He didn’t post it online. He didn’t share it.

The controversy began when a third party falsely described the list to another student as something vulgar. That student confronted Kyaan, upset over what she had been told. He immediately clarified what the list actually was and followed up later with a text message explaining again that it was not derogatory and that her name wasn’t even on it. She responded acknowledging that she understood and appreciated the clarification.

That should have been the end.

Instead, days later, the assistant principal contacted the family claiming Kyann was under investigation for cyberbullying. Within days, the allegations escalated.

What began as cyberbullying quickly expanded to “tampering with witnesses” for asking his peers what was happening… and then to an accusation of a governmental breach, a felony-level charge!

The justification for that claim centered around a folder of internal documents that appeared in Kyaan’s Google Drive. School officials alleged that while sitting in the assistant principal’s office, he “accessed sensitive files and sent them to himself”.

But the evidence provided to me DISPROVES this story.

Read on for part 2 👇

Image 1 - This Google data log clearly shows that Kristan Williams was the only person who shared a document with Kyaan. There was no other shared document sent to his Google Drive.

Image 2 - This shows that Kristan Williams restricted access to the same file on September 26 at 12:48 PM… two days after interviewing Kyaan and sharing the document. This confirms the file remained open and accessible during the time it was used and shared.

Kyaan had been called into the assistant principal’s office as part of the investigation and was instructed to type a statement on her laptop while she remained in the room with him. According to recorded statements and the school’s own acknowledgment, she never left the office during that time. Surveillance footage exists showing him entering and exiting the office - but notably, the school has refused to release the full footage of who entered or exited during that period.

Digital records further undermine their accusation. The data directly contradicted any claims of a “breach.” Google records show the assistant principal shared an unrestricted, open-to-all file, while video footage places Kyaan in the hallway returning to class at the exact moment that file was accessed and edited!

Timeline data also shows Kyaan was LOCKED OUT of his Google Drive at that same time. System logs reflect that the documents in question were edited and even renamed by the assistant principal HERSELF. Records explicitly tie those changes to her account. The activity the school attributed to Kyaan occurred while he had NO ACCESS to his account.

The depth of the issue became clear in a meeting with the family. After being presented with the digital records showing the edits tied to the assistant principal’s name, the principal acknowledged the discrepancy, apologized, and stated the matter would have to be handled internally.

Despite this, the situation escalated behind the scenes. According to documentation provided to the family, a district-level administrator recommended pursuing a felony charge related to a breach of government infrastructure. Law enforcement was contacted. The school resource officer relied on administrative notes to support a sworn affidavit rather than conducting an independent investigation. Those notes, according to the family, were misleading and omitted a critical fact: the assistant principal had already reported on herself for sharing an unrestricted, open-to-all file - information that was not provided to the officer.

Then, On October 7, a Warrant was obtained and Kyaan was arrested at school!

He was taken into custody in front of other students. His parents were not properly notified beforehand. His mother says she first learned of the situation when her son called her from jail.

Kyaan, a Type 1 diabetic, was taken WITHOUT ACCESS to his medication. He spent the NIGHT in JAIL while his family scrambled to understand what had happened. He was held for over 40 hours as his parents scrambled to find any details of why he was arrested! They described it to me as “a parent’s worst nightmare”.

Read on for part 3 👇

Image - This is a photo of multiple teenagers while they were making the “list”. It is a still shot of a video that I received. There were multiple teenagers involved in making this list. Yet Kyaan was the only targeted student.

At the same time, the school sent letters to other parents stating that a student had gained unauthorized access to sensitive information - identifying Kyaan as responsible and cementing the narrative before any facts were established.

By that point, his reputation had already been destroyed.

Weeks into the ordeal, during a formal disciplinary hearing to determine mandatory expulsion - with a minimum 45-day removal from school - the same associate principal who investigated his so-called “crime,” alongside a Frisco ISD attorney, abruptly reversed course. Officials ADMITTED there was no evidence that Kyaan had committed any wrongdoing. He would serve 0 days expulsion. His absences were re-coded as excused. He was cleared and told to return to class at once.

But there was no apology. No public correction. No effort to undo the damage that had already been done.

According to the family, although they are grateful charges were never filed by the District Attorney, the fallout continues. Students and parents still believe he committed a serious offense. The stigma remains. The student has faced ongoing bullying and social targeting. Meanwhile, the district has denied responsibility, with school officials and law enforcement reportedly shifting blame onto one another. The family says the mental, emotional, and financial toll has been overwhelming.

The family has since filed formal complaints and is pursuing further action. Their complaint against the school resource officer was sustained! Frisco PD found sufficient evidence that the officer failed to follow due process and did not conduct an independent and thorough investigation. A complaint filed with the Texas Education Agency has been escalated and remains ongoing. Meanwhile, the district that publicly labeled Kyaan a criminal made no effort to undo the damage. The assistant principal was quietly moved to another campus, while the district denied the family’s Level III complaint. This raised further questions about whether this was handled internally rather than transparently. The family is also seeking the full investigative file and the release of withheld video footage - evidence they believe will further expose what they describe as a coordinated and unjustified series of actions taken against their son.

This case raises serious questions about accountability, employee misconduct, and the need for independent oversight. A student was accused of a felony, arrested in front of his peers, and publicly labeled as responsible for a serious breach! Despite a confession, digital records, documentation, and internal findings that contradict that claim.

And according to the evidence reviewed in this case, those responsible appear to have known it. The very people entrusted to educate and protect students are now facing allegations that they abused their authority!

This raises the question of whether they should continue to hold those positions at all. All of this occurred under the “leadership” of Superintendent Mike Waldrip.

Image - Letter sent to parents stating that there was a “disclosure of student records”. This was later proven to not be the case.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Sarah Fields

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SarahisCensored

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!