FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Former Camp Worker Pleaded Guilty to Abusing Girls He Supervised; Sentences Reported Differ

Two sentencings announced on August 12, 2026 were described in conflicting terms by two outlets, which reported different conduct and different prison terms.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 13, 2026, 12:43 a.m. ET

More on this incident

Anthony Mastrangelo, 27, a former camp worker who worked as a substitute in Bethany and in an after-school and summer camp program, pleaded guilty to inappropriately touching girls he was supervising, according to WFSB. A guilty plea is an admission of the conduct charged, and WFSB reported the case had reached the sentencing stage. The accounts of the sentence diverge. WFSB reported a sentence of . WSMV reported a sentence of 235 months in prison with lifetime supervised release, registration as a sex offender, deportation to the U.K., and orders to sell a Farragut home and forfeit $249,805.29. Neither figure can be reconciled from the material available; both are given as reported. The outlets also describe different conduct and different defendants. WSMV reported that the government says that in July 2025, Andrew Worrall — identified by WSMV as a 56-year-old United Kingdom citizen living in Farragut — 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. WSMV placed that case in the . The charges recorded across the two reports are inappropriately touching girls he was supervising, one count of sexual exploitation of a child, and one count of production of child pornography. Both sentencings were announced on August 12, 2026. What remains to be resolved in the public record is which sentence and which conduct attach to which defendant; that has not been established by the reporting available.

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.