West Haven Woman Sentenced to 12 Years in Federal Prison for Enticing Minor
Elizabeth Jordan received a 144-month prison sentence in Hartford federal court on Aug. 12, 2026.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 9:51 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 9:51 a.m. ETFirst report
West Haven Woman Sentenced to 144 Months for Enticing Minor
On August 12, 2026, Elizabeth Jordan, 43, of West Haven, was sentenced in Hartford federal court to 144 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release for enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity, according to an announcement from U.S. Attorney David X. Sullivan for the District of Connecticut.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Jordan engaged in sexual activity on March 12, 2024, with a minor who was 17 after sustained pressure from Joshua Bailey. Jordan livestreamed the activity to Bailey using Facebook Messenger, and a subsequent search of Bailey's phone revealed screenshots of the activity. Jordan and Bailey were detained in August 2024 following arrests on related state offenses, and both pleaded guilty in federal court on November 3, 2025.
U.S. District Judge Sarala V. Nagala ordered Jordan to pay $10,000 pursuant to the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018. On March 27, 2026, Judge Nagala sentenced Bailey to 144 months of imprisonment and ordered him to pay $5,000 under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 and $10,000 under the 2018 Act. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the West Haven Police Department investigated the matter, which official records list as an open, developing case.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:52current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:51current
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.