Teen Girl Charged, Not Convicted, in Mosque Shooting Livestream Case
Sarah L. Santiago faces murder and conspiracy charges, which remain undecided, for allegedly helping spread a livestream of a deadly mosque shooting.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 3:51 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 1, 2026, 3:51 a.m. ETFirst report
Teen Girl Charged with Aiding Mosque Shooting Livestream
Sarah L. Santiago has been charged in connection with a deadly mosque shooting, according to the Forsyth County District Attorney. The charges, reported by kotaradio.com, include murder by aiding and abetting, three murder counts, and one conspiracy count. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; Santiago has not been tried or convicted.
The government alleges that Santiago agreed before the attack to record and distribute the gunmen's livestream and publish their manifesto, and that she bought a patch bearing a white-supremacist symbol for one of the attackers to wear during the shooting. The charges were announced on September 1, 2026.
The FBI is among the investigating agencies. The charges are allegations, and Santiago is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 07:52current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 07:51current
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.