FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Two Men Sentenced in Child Sex Cases, With Outlets Reporting Differing Details

Sentencings announced August 12, 2026 followed a guilty plea and convictions on child sex charges. WFSB and WSMV give conflicting accounts of both the conduct and the punishment.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 13, 2026, 12:38 a.m. ET

More on this incident

Sentences were announced on August 12, 2026 in child sex cases involving two defendants, according to reporting by WFSB and WSMV. WFSB reported the sentencing of Anthony Mastrangelo, 27, a former camp worker who had worked as a substitute in Bethany and in an after-school and summer camp program, and who pleaded guilty to inappropriately touching girls he was supervising. WSMV reported the case of Andrew Worrall, 56, a United Kingdom citizen living in Farragut, in the . The charges described by the two outlets are inappropriately touching girls he was supervising, one count of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of production of child pornography, as reported by WFSB and WSMV. The two accounts of the conduct alleged differ, and neither outweighs the other. WSMV reported that the government says that in July 2025, Andrew Worrall used Snapchat to contact two 17-year-old girls — one in Tennessee and one in South Carolina — coercing both into sending him explicit photos and videos. WFSB reported that . The sentences the two outlets describe also conflict. WFSB reported . WSMV reported 235 months in prison, lifetime supervised release, a requirement to register as a sex offender, deportation to the U.K., and orders to sell a Farragut home and forfeit $249,805.29. Because the two outlets describe the punishment differently, this account gives both figures as reported rather than choosing between them or matching either to a single defendant. Both cases stand at the sentencing stage, and neither outlet described any step beyond it.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 113 Aug 2026, 04:38current

    First published.

  2. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:15current

    First published.

  3. Version 113 Aug 2026, 04:43current

    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.