A Preteen "Terrorist"

Swatting, Bomb Threats, Sexual Exploitation and an Eleven-Year-Old Suspect

In May 2024, an 11-year-old boy (name withheld due to his age) from Virginia allegedly orchestrated a series of threats that disrupted an entire school district in Flagler County, Florida. The series of threats began on May 14, 2024, when Buddy Taylor Middle School received a bomb threat. Over the next week and a half, more than 20 additional threats targeted various schools in the Flagler County district.

Sheriff Staly announces arrest

The nature of these threats escalated rapidly, ranging from claims of planting pipe bombs to graphic descriptions of intended mass shootings. In one particularly disturbing call, the young perpetrator claimed that a teacher had already been shot.

However, the 11-year-old's criminal activities reportedly extended far beyond Flagler County, Florida. According to Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly, the investigation revealed that the boy was responsible for making threats and "swatting" calls in Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Tennessee, and Alaska. He also threatened the Maryland State House of Representatives.

Many of these threats were examples of "swatting" - a dangerous practice where false reports are made to emergency services to provoke a significant, often armed, law enforcement response to a specific location. The dangers of swatting extend beyond the immediate disruption and fear they cause. In several tragic cases across the country, swatting has led to accidental injuries or deaths when law enforcement, believing they were responding to a real threat, used force against innocent individuals. While fortunately, no such tragedy occurred in this case, the potential for devastating consequences underscores the seriousness of these actions.

The investigation uncovered evidence of sexual extortion activities. Specifically, the boy admitted to engaging in acts that included the threatened distribution of compromising pictures of others in exchange for money or favors. This aspect of the case is particularly troubling, as it introduces elements of sexual exploitation and blackmail to an already complex situation.

The Fallout

Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly described the enormous impact of these threats: "Every case instilled fear in our students, teachers, parents, with many keeping their children at home until the end of the school year." Schools initiated frequent lockdowns, with law enforcement and SWAT teams deployed repeatedly. Fearful parents kept their children at home, leading to plummeting attendance rates. For many students, the school year ended prematurely, overshadowed by fear and uncertainty.

The case also sparked a copycat incident. On May 17, local authorities arrested a 13-year-old who had made a bomb threat to Buddy Taylor Middle School, apparently imitating the original calls. This threat highlights the potential for such incidents to inspire further criminal behavior among vulnerable youth.

The Investigation Process

The investigation into these threats was complicated, and its scope required a collaboration between local law enforcement, the FBI, and multiple state agencies. The perpetrator demonstrated an unexpected level of technological savvy, using methods to mask his identity that initially stymied investigators. In addition,

Digital forensics played a crucial role, with experts working to trace the origins of the calls. Voice pattern analysis became another key tool, allowing investigators to compare audio from the threats to interviews conducted during the investigation.

The breakthrough came with the execution of a search warrant at a residence in Henrico, Virginia. What investigators found was both illuminating and deeply troubling. The 11-year-old suspect had gone so far as to physically remove his laptop's hard drive, demonstrating a level of foresight unusual for his age. Even more concerning was the evidence of his online activities: a history of viewing violent content, including animal cruelty videos, and involvement in online groups discussing school threats.

The preteen confessed when questioned by police. While we don't know what happened in the interview room, the child's attitude troubled investigators. Afterward, the Sheriff stated, "I believe that we will read about him committing more serious and probably violent crimes in the future." He further indicated that the boy's attitude suggested a lack of full appreciation for the consequences of his actions.

Given his young age, that fact alone is not particularly alarming; children know right from wrong long before they can truly appreciate it. They are also much more vulnerable to environmental and social influences. However, his actions are clear indicators of the need for significant family and individual intervention as early, unchecked attraction to violent images, particularly when coupled with sex, has often been documented in the histories of sexually motivated serial killers.

The Suspect's Profile

From a forensic psychology perspective, the little we know about this young suspect paints a complex and troubling picture. The boy's brother described him as "weird" and told authorities there was "something wrong with him." He said his brother had a "dark sense of humor" and a "dark side" that included attraction to animal abuse and human cruelty.

The suspect's mother provided additional context, stating that her son had become consumed with the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic. His increasing online immersion has exacerbated his social isolation and exposed him to disturbing content.

His interest in violent content went beyond typical childhood curiosity. According to Sheriff Staly, the boy admitted to being "interested in very violent materials" he could find online, including videos depicting animal cruelty, beheading, and what Staly termed "murder pornography." This fascination with violence, combined with his advanced technological skills and apparent ability to compartmentalize his online activities from his real-life persona, paints a picture of a child experiencing significant psychological distress and dissociation.

This young offender's history of sexual exploitation and blackmail shows that his online activities went beyond making threats and extended into the realm of sexual crimes despite his young age. This information adds another layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the boy's exposure to sexual content online, his understanding of the severity of such actions, and the potential for him to have been exploited or influenced by older individuals in online spaces.

Were Others Involved?

Perhaps most alarmingly, evidence suggested the boy had received cryptocurrency payments for making threats, hinting at a broader network of online criminal activity. During the child's confession for making a threat against the Maryland State House of Representatives, Sheriff Staly stated the boy would "oftentimes be paid in cryptocurrency to make the calls for other people."

This aspect of the case raises difficult questions about the exploitation of minors in cybercrime and the challenges of policing these activities. However, as of the latest reports, the identities of those who may have paid the boy to make threats remain unknown. The investigation into this broader network is ongoing, with authorities working to uncover the extent of the operation and identify any adult perpetrators who may have been exploiting the young suspect.

When and What Children Are Violent?

A 2023 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry provides valuable context for understanding the case of the 11-year-old threat maker. Led by Dr. Deborah Weisbrot, this research examined 157 school-age youth who had made threats and were subsequently referred for psychiatric evaluation over 20 years. The average age was 13.4 years, significantly older than our preteen offender. At 11, he falls below the mean age of the study participants, which could suggest that his case is particularly precocious regarding the sophistication of his threats and technological abilities.

Key findings from the study, in comparison to our eleven-year-old offender, include:

• Psychiatric Diagnoses: The majority of youth who made threats had one or more psychiatric diagnoses, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and autism spectrum disorders. While we don't have specific information about any formal diagnoses the eleven-year-old has received, his family's descriptions of his behavior and interests suggest potential underlying mental health issues. If accurate, this finding would align with the study's finding that most youth making threats have psychiatric diagnoses.

• Learning Disorders: A history of learning disorders and special education placement were both common among the studied population. The study found that forty-one percent of the youth evaluated had been diagnosed with a learning disorder, and fifty-two percent were in special education. The prevalence of learning disorders (41%) in the study population is also noteworthy. While we don't have information about whether our 11-year-old subject has a diagnosed learning disorder, his apparent technological proficiency might suggest that he doesn't face the same academic challenges as many in the study. However, it's important to note that learning disorders can coexist with areas of significant strength or talent, so we can't rule out the possibility based solely on his technological skills.

• Prior Treatment: 50% of the youth in the research group had a history of psychiatric medication treatment, and 37% had received psychotherapeutic interventions. To date, there's no indication that the 11-year-old had received prior psychiatric treatment or interventions, raising questions about missed opportunities for early intervention.

• Traumatic Experiences: Over half (52%) of researched juvenile offenders had experienced significant traumatic family events, and nearly 90% reported traumatic life experiences. We don't yet know of specific traumatic events that may have colored our eleven-year-old's perspective; from family reports, social isolation and other effects of Covid were a negative influence on him.

• Bullying: 43% of our violent juvenile offenders had a history of being bullied. We don't know whether this risk factor applies to the recently arrested eleven-year-old. What we know so far suggests his social isolation seems more self-imposed or related to the pandemic.

• Nature of Threats: In the 2023 study, eighty percent of the threats the juvenile offenders made were verbal, while twenty-nine percent of the youth had brought a weapon to school. The recently highlighted eleven-year-old case involved multiple threats and sophisticated use of technology, which may indicate a more extreme case than the average found in the study. While his threats were all made remotely, his "swatting" could be seen as a technological equivalent of bringing a weapon to school, as it resulted in armed responses.

This comparison highlights the commonalities this case shares with other instances of threatening youths and the unique aspects that make it particularly concerning. The sophistication of the threats, the use of technology, and the apparent lack of prior interventions or diagnoses set this case apart from the typical profile of the violent juvenile offender. These differences underscore the evolving nature of youth threats in the digital age and the need for updated identification, intervention, and treatment approaches.

This information provides essential context and highlights how the case of this 11-year-old perpetrator both aligns with and diverges from the typical profile of youth who make threats in schools. It also underscores the complexity of this case and the need for a nuanced approach to assessment and intervention.

The Bottom Line

This case presents many legal and ethical challenges our justice system is ill-equipped to handle. At eleven years old, this child is well below the typical age of serious juvenile offenders, yet the severity of his actions and troubling violent preoccupations demand a significant response.

The crimes' cross-jurisdictional nature adds another layer of complexity. With threats made from Virginia to Florida and evidence of involvement in a broader online network spanning multiple states, determining the appropriate venue for prosecution becomes challenging.

Perhaps the most challenging question is balancing rehabilitation with punishment for such a young offender. The traditional goals of the juvenile justice system – rehabilitation and reintegration – seem particularly vital in this case, given the suspect's age.

A recent poll found that Americans are evenly divided in how we should handle violent teens between 14 and 17; half of us think they should be treated as an adult and the other half vote for leniency. But what do we do with an eleven-year-old? I do not think this child should be tried as an adult; no eleven-year-old, no matter how smart or callous, has the mental capacity of a grownup. Neither is his behavior as set in stone. I do believe that the severity and sophistication of his crimes also call for significant therapeutic intervention, ongoing monitoring, and behavioral accountability.

As always, thank you for reading this issue of The Mind Detective! Please pass it along to your true-crime-following friends. If there’s a case you’d like me to cover, please contact me.