Three Charged in Hornell Hate-Symbol Pamphlet Case; Case Undecided
Aubrey Dragonetti, 31, is one of three people charged after pamphlets with hate symbols were placed at houses of worship in Hornell, New York. The case is at the charging stage and has not been decided.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 24, 2026, 9:46 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 24, 2026, 9:51 p.m. ET
Three Charged in Hornell Hate-Symbol Pamphlet Case
Aubrey Dragonetti, 31, Dylan Henry, 30, and Ryan Mulhollen, 27, have been charged with first-degree aggravated harassment, according to abc17news.com. The charges stem from allegations that the defendants placed pamphlets with hate symbols at a church, a synagogue, and other areas in Hornell, New York.
The case is only at the charging stage, and the defendants have not been tried. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sentencing has not been scheduled.
Aug 24, 2026, 9:46 p.m. ETFirst report
Three Charged After Hate-Symbol Pamphlets Placed at Houses of Worship in Hornell, New York
Three people have been charged after pamphlets with hate symbols were allegedly placed at a church, a synagogue, and other areas in Hornell, New York, according to abc17news.com.
Aubrey Dragonetti, 31, Dylan Henry, 30, and Ryan Mulhollen, 27, are each charged with first-degree aggravated harassment, as reported by abc17news.com. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The case is at the charging stage, and no trial date has been set. The investigation is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 01:51current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 01:46current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 01:54current
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.