BREAKING…. Erin Cox Does Not Appear in Court for Possession of Alcohol, Attorney Says Family Not Authorizing Any Money to be Raised



By: Tom Duggan – October 22, 2013
(8AM)-Updated 3PM

Despite Attorney Murphy’s Assertions, Eagle Tribune Backs Claims that Erin Cox WAS Summonsed to Appear in Court for Possession of Alcohol

The Valley Patriot published a story this morning citing Law enforcement sources in North Andover who claimed High School student Erin Cox was to appear in court on charges of possession of alcohol. (See linked story above).

The Valley Patriot has since been told by famed attorney Wendy Murphy that this information was false and Cox did not appear yesterday. Murphy represents the Cox family told the Valley Patriot that our sources “lied” not Erin Cox.

“Your sources lied, the schools lawyer lied, the principal lied … and retaliation like this is unconscionable and actionable,” she said in an email in reaction to our original story.

Cox did not appear in court this morning with the other students who were cited for underage drinking in Boxford earlier this month. Because the students are all minors the court would not release any information on the status of the underage students who appeared in juvenile court today.

EDITORS NOTE: Cox later confessed in Lawrence District Court to not only being in possession of alcohol but also consuming it. (SEE STORY)

Law Enforcement sources had also told the Valley Patriot that the media hype surrounding Erin Cox being suspended for allegedly giving her friend a ride home from a drinking party was … “a lie.” 

Law enforcement sources in Boxford and North Andover also had told the Valley Patriot that social media posts show other students at the underage drinking party had posted on social media sites calling Cox a “liar” for claiming she was not at the underage drinking party when it was raided by police. 

Cox Family Attorney Wendy Murphy issued this statement today to the Valley Patriot (here)

In part Murphy said: “Silly claims meant to distract public attention and insulate the North Andover School District from shame will not be dignified. The statement of a police officer at the scene was provided in court and to North Andover school officials making it very clear that Erin Cox did not have even the “slightest” odor of alcohol, had not been drinking, had no intention of drinking and was at the party to help a friend. The response to this information, submitted in court by the school’s lawyer and told to the judge, with the school’s principal present, falsely claimed that Erin had been “arrested at the scene.” This lie has fueled retaliation and more lies and will be addressed in litigation.

Cox told the media through her attorney previously, that she was only at the party to give her friend a ride home, because her friend was too drunk to drive. Parents of children at the drinking party posted on the WGBH Boston blog, stating that all students at the party were driven home by parents, none were driven home by other students.

Contrary to claims by the North Andover School Committee attorney Cox was not arrested at the party. She was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol. 

Earlier this month, school officials in North Andover cleared Erin Cox of having been drinking at the underage party, however, the rules for college athletes  governed by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) were cited by High School Principal Scuzzarella when she suspended Cox from the Volleyball team for five games, and stripped away her captaincy for being present at the party. 

Superintendent Hutchinson told North Andover Patch that there is no “zero tolerance policy” and that Erin’s suspension was the full discretion of High School Principal Scuzzarella. 

Last week Superintendent Hutchinson told North Andover Patch“Although we have been asked by several media outlets to respond to the allegations made against North Andover High School, our practice is to not comment on matters involving student discipline,” This approach is consistent with state and federal laws that prohibit the disclosure of confidential student record information.” 

An online webspage set up for donations for a scholarship fund for Cox, called “The Erin Cox Fund”  had the following statement posted this morning.

Dear Contributors,
Thank you all for your generousity to the Erin Cox Fund. I have been informed by Erin’s mother that she would like your donations to go to MADD or to the charity of your choice. “Go Fund Me” is a great tool for donating to noble causes, however I have learned that the Erin Cox story is still developing and I believe it is best to refund all donations at this time.

Like all of you, I wanted to do something good for a student that seemed to be unfairly treated by her high school. This fund is something that I would have created for anyone in need of social justice. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your incredible generousity. At this time, it is best to accept the refund and if the Erin Cox story still interests you please follow the North Andover Citizen online.

You are all amazing people.

Best wishes,




Despite Attorney Murphy’s Assertions, Eagle Tribune Backs Claims that Erin Cox WAS Summonsed to Appear in Court for Possession of Alcohol

Chaos in Cox Case as Stories Conflict – North Andover Patch – October 22, 2013

School lawyer lied about ‘arrest’ of girl suspended for trying to help drunken pal, attorney says – Fox News October 16, 2013

Erin Cox, suspended Massachusetts prep volleyball player, accused of lying – YAHOO – October 22, 2103

Student athlete shines in first game back after suspension for allegedly aiding drunken friend – Fox News October 19, 2013

Erin Cox, Mass. high school student, punished for aiding drunken friend – CBS – October 15, 2013

88 Responses to "BREAKING…. Erin Cox Does Not Appear in Court for Possession of Alcohol, Attorney Says Family Not Authorizing Any Money to be Raised"

  1. A   October 22, 2013 at 9:39 AM

    Finally an article with the correct information

    • LadyG   October 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

      HAHAHA! is awesome!

    • anon   October 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

      I’ll try again, not sure why it was removed.
      The article “with the correct information” was retracted!

    • jenny lee   October 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM


      you are a sorry excuse for a newspaper editor. Stop TRYING to issue
      “bombshell” reports.

      1) You KNEW that the Cox lawyer had denied she was issued a summons,
      and also that the N A school system’s lawyer had been called a liar for
      saying she had been arrested.

      2) You also were aware of the email from the Boxford police officer
      categorically stating Eric Cox did NOT smell of alcohol, etc.

      3) the info re the Fund being discontinued at the request of the Cox family was
      not “news” and had been previously reported by creditable sources.

      Yet, you chose to write an inaccurate article (which you HAD to retract 4 hours later) that she was due in court Tuesday.

      Did you in FACT have a police source? And if so WHY did they tell you something that was UNtrue?

      In order to clear YOUR “reputation” you have a duty and responsibility to PUBLICLY disclose WHO/WHICH N A police officer allegedly told you this.

      Absent that, you and the VP deserve to be sued BIG TIME.


      • Tom Duggan   November 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM


        • dawg the stupid hunter   November 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM

          AGAIN, where is you proof Tommy?
          Why don’t stop digging into this girls life? You are making a bigger ass of yourself the more crap you spout. So stop the witch hunt.
          Also, people can do some digging on you and find a boat load of good stuff that I am sure you dont want out for the world to see or hear about.

          • Tom Duggan   November 18, 2013 at 8:55 AM

            sorry to disappoint you Dawg but anything I did in my past I put out there for the whole world to see long ago so that cowards like you who make anonymous comments behind a fake name have nothing to use against me. I take responsibility for my personal indiscretions in life whatever they happen to be, but the one thing I don’t do…. I don’t hide behind a fake name and make accusations against people. I put my NAME on everything I write and let the chips fall where they may… but then again… unlike you I am not a coward. Also, nobody is ruining Erin’s life. ERIN and ERINS FAMILY put this story out there in the national news, not Tom Duggan, not law enforcement and not the schools. Once THEY put the story out there and the national media reported on it, anyone who calls themselves a journalist is not doing their JOB if they do not research the story and report the truth … whatever that happens to be… but at least now i DO understand why so few reporters do that… because when they DO… they have to deal with cowards like you.

          • dawg the stupid hunter   November 18, 2013 at 9:56 AM

            First off TOMMY BOY I was commenting under my REAL NAME til you decided to have me blocked because I was calling you out for being the hack reporter that you are. You are a disgrace to true journalism and should be ashamed at what you write and lie about.

            Second this isnt about the Cox story anymore. The way you and others are acting it reminds me of something that happened 400 years ago in Salem. Yes the witch hunts.

            Thirdly, if you were such a good reporter as you claim to be you would have already figured out WHO I am. Between my original posts and my name here, it is pretty obvious who I am. I haven’t been hiding my disdain for you and what you are all about. Here is a hint “YOU USED THE SITE AS ONE OF YOUR SOURCES FOR THE ORIGINAL STORY”.

            And finally Why did you block me from posting under my real name earlier TOM? For someone that believes in the constitution and the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, you would think that you would ensure that EVERYONE be given a fair shake in your forum.
            Oh thats right only if they agree with your ideals and dont call you out for the scum you truly are

  2. Ken   October 22, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    You will never see the true facts broadcast coast to coast. Not sensational enought!

  3. Suzy Somer   October 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM

    Well, they can certainly search her phone records and see if a call was made to her by the friend who needed the ride.

  4. anonyous   October 22, 2013 at 10:36 AM

    There had been a total of donations before they decided they had been duped and shut down the charity. It seems as though North Andover High School made their decision on punishment based on what they heard from all the students that got in trouble at the party. I’m sure if her story was backed up by anyone else at the party, they would not have been punished. P.S. Where is the friend in all of this that she was going to rescue? Do you think she might be out in support of Erin if this “injustice” was all on her behalf?

  5. Charles Ormsby   October 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM

    How does social justice differ from just plain old justice??

    • Joao   October 22, 2013 at 4:47 PM

      Social Justice discriminates.

  6. Rocko   October 22, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    This girl lied the whole time and UOENO.

  7. James Carlson   October 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    Not that it is particularly relevant to this scandal, but “social justice” is a fairly well established term that refers to justice within a society, and in particular to class differences. If you’re going to make light of that web site posting, this is probably the least important issue to pick on. Perhaps looking closely at a media frenzy that’s based on a lack of hard information and an oversupply of leap-to-judgement reporting that is causing people around the world to speak ill of our town should matter more than this.

  8. EricH   October 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM

    Patrick, let me guess, a resident of North Andover? Got a dog in the fight, do ya? Or maybe a gripe against Valley Patriot? Likely just a compulsive shit-stirrer.

  9. Student   October 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM

    I grew up there and went to school there…they don’t know their asses from their elbows at any given time! So it would not surprise me that they didn’t wait for all the info to come out before ruining someone’s life…whether or not this girl lied, NA is known by the students that grew up there as a joke and most likely always will!

    • anonymous   October 22, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      Suspending someone from a few volleyball games and not letting them be captain does not ruin anyone’s life. Hiring a lawyer to file false suits and getting yourself on every major media outlet to support a lie can certainly have that effect though.

  10. paul   October 22, 2013 at 11:26 AM

    the problem lies with the adminastration the prin vp ad all tell the kids dont go dont help or you will be in trouble. but the adjucment counceler at every school i have been associated with tells the kids not to leave. its a mix message

  11. john lueschen   October 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM

    North andovers a bunch of yuppies..

  12. Joe   October 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM

    Do I believe she was at the party for longer than she is saying, YES. Do I care if she was drinking or not, No. She was on her own time, and it had nothing to do with a school event. The party wasn’t even in her home town. The reaching into people’s personal lives is getting out of control. The zero tolerance policies being put into place from our schools are out of control.

  13. Anon Y Mous   October 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM

    NAHS administrators can and do jump the gun and disciplining students. They did it to my son. She (not the current principal) tried to suspend my son once unfairly, until she got the WHOLE story. And another time suspended him quoting Mass General Laws, and ended up in contrarian to those laws.

  14. Brian Downer   October 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM

    Another precious snowflake gets bitten by reality !

  15. Kathy   October 22, 2013 at 12:28 PM

    The entire event is a sad state of affairs! Kudos to the atheltic department and school for following procedure, there need to be consequences for actions, and that has happened, thanks to the school!

  16. Tom Duggan   October 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM

    Hey Patrick you seem to be confused. Our job is to ask questions and write down peoples answers and then publish them. If what we were told by Law Enforcement is not correct that is on Law Enforcement but to insinuate that we just make things up is simply not true. I know you let your personal hatred get the best of you so you cannot think straight on things like this. Newspapers quote people who are WRONG all the time. That is on the person speaking not the person writing the story.

  17. Thomas   October 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM

    So Tom, do you have a credible witness or a source with a name? This is soddy journalism to be sure.

    • Tom Duggan   October 22, 2013 at 12:54 PM

      Thomas, we quoted law enforcement officials

      • Thomas   October 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM

        No you didn’t. You quoted an unnamed source. He/she could be a police officer with credible information. Or he/she could be your receptionist repeating what he/she read on Facebook. But we don’t know, because there is no one on the record. But please, let’s call the young lady a liar and see if the story can be picked up nationally, based on what high school students write on Facebook.

        • EricH   October 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM

          One more valid point by you Thomas, and you’ll find yourself joining Patrick in a “Time-Out”. It may already be too late.

  18. con   October 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM

    Remember, that “Drinking” is wholly different than “Drunk Driving”. I don’t see the point in making “Drinking” per se illegal.

    So she was caught (maybe) with a drink in her hand. BFD. Stop putting alcohol on a pedestal and maybe people will stop worshiping it. Drinking age 16, Driving age 18.

  19. Anna G   October 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM

    Did you see There is up to a $2000 bounty for information leading the suspention, arrest or incarceration of North Andover administration members. WOW!!!

  20. Eric   October 22, 2013 at 1:12 PM

    Oh, well if social media posts are enough to go off of to perform a witch hunt then I guess I’ll post that I was at a party across the street that night with Beyoncé and Mila Kunis and that girl definitely had just showed up.

  21. Pancho   October 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    I think that there is much more to the story than has come out so far, but this particular article has almost no value. Unless I’m reading it wrong, Mr. Duggan’s source told him that kids on social media are saying that Erin Cox was at the party for longer than most people think. This is hardly a scoop, and info posted on facebook by teenagers is hardly credible evidence.
    I’m still waiting for the mystery texter to come forward, or better yet, the distress text itself. Should be easy to produce either.

  22. anonymous   October 22, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    What makes you believe Erin Cox’s story? Let’s look at it logically. Who has anything to gain by wrongly accusing her or punishing her unfairly? Nobody. Who has anything to gain by her story being true? Erin Cox.
    I want a credible witness on her side. Just one of the dozens of kids that were at this party or the friend she was there to “rescue” could have come out by now to defend her, and believe me, the mainstream media would post it everywhere, but that hasn’t happened.
    I’m willing to bet that NAHS administators did talk with the kids from school that were involved and do know the correct story and that is what they are basing their enforcement of MIAA rules on.

    • Thomas   October 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      And the Boxford police officer, who’s written statement was submitted to the court and the NA school board, isn’t a credible witness?

      • Pancho   October 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        Last I read, the statement was sent to the assistant superintendent, not the school board and not the court. This wasn’t an official police report, and it seems questionable to me. The tribune reported that four police departments reported to the scene. The officer in question admits that there were “many” people under 21 present. How carefully did he scrutinize her, really? Seems like a busy scene that night.

        • Thomas   October 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM

          I believe I read somewhere that the copy of Officer Neeley’s email to the school board was including in the court briefs, but I may be wrong. However, don’t split hairs about whether it went to the assistant superintendent or the superintendent. Mr. Hutchinson saw the email.

  23. Ogre   October 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM

    My only real issue with this entire thing is the school’s involvement. They have NO BUSINESS restricting behavior outside of school business. NONE. If I were a parent, I would be suing the school for violating MY rights as a parent to discipline my child as I saw fit.

    As to the “witnesses”…whatever. Witnesses are frequently wrong and half-way decent attorney would tear them apart on the stand especially since the witnesses themselves were PROBABLY drinking. And the cops KNOW that.

    • anonymous   October 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM

      The school didn’t actually enforce their own discipline. There was no suspension from school or any consequences pertaining to education. What was enforced was MIAA regulations pertaining to after school athletics. The sports activities that you volunteer to participate in after school hours have their own set of rules that are clearly defined.

  24. Drew   October 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM
    Here’s a text from the queen herself

    • anon   October 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM

      Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I could create a screen cap of a text that appears to be from Principal Scuzzarella.

  25. Let's calm down and think rationally....   October 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Let’s pause and ask ourselves – what if the facts of the real story do not line up with the ‘facts’ being portrayed in the original reports in the news (“Perfect Teen Rescues Drunk Friend”?

    Assume for the moment that the administrators are not completely stupid. I know some people just want to be simple – Kid=Good, Officials=Bad. And it is so much more fun to bash the administrators, the school board, the principal, etc…but let’s think this through.


    If the facts were as originally stated, they would never make the decision they made. They would know this was a fight they would lose (on appeal or worse in the court of public opinion). Up till now, the town and administrators have looked like complete idiots based on what is being said. It makes the town look bad. This kind of thing is how people lose their jobs. If some perfect kid left her job to rush out and pick up a drunk friend and based on unbelievably bad timing shows up just when the police come. If you can even get comfortable with any part of that story —Erin walks off free.

    So…we have to ask — why would they go ahead and suspend her and strip her of her captaincy AND stick to it – when it has been crashing down on them for two weeks?

    Maybe because there has only been one side out in the public domain? The school is prohibited (by law) from commenting on a minor/student.

    From what I can see/read: there was a hearing (not an automatic punishment due to a zero tolerance policy) and presumably the student should have been able to offer proof, any proof at all (work time card, text messages, phone records, witnesses) to clearly prove her story’s accuracy. If she did so, I doubt there would be this punishment. And if she couldn’t? Hmm…

    Is it not possible that her story might not be completely truthful? What if she was at the party for quite some time? Maybe she did get called and stayed not for minutes but for hours? What if she was drinking but not drunk? Maybe she did drink plenty and was drunk and vomiting? We do not know….but it sure sounds fishy.

    Would she be the first teenager to have a ready excuse for her parents as to why she was there and why she was cited for being a minor with possession of alcohol?

    Whether we think the school can or should be involved doesn’t matter. They can and they must according to the rules. The MIAA policy and the policy all kids and parents have to sign in order to play sports at any high school in MA says you agree that any drinking offense on or off school grounds is a problem. You have to agree to that to play any sport, If reported the school has to follow up. Once reported to them by the police the school officials are required to follow-up.

    As to the police officer’s statement…ask a police chief if an officer should be responding to an email from an attorney looking to exonerate a accused client. I am guessing that the officer should be rationally required to say ..:”the investigation is ongoing…no comment…I will cooperate and make statements to the DA only.” It is mind-boggling that an officer would go on record against the other officers in his department and not in court. It’s no sworn affidavit.

    • anon   October 22, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      All of what you say makes perfect sense until the last point. Why would the Boxford officer do that? For you it somehow seems fishy. To me, for him to take that unnecessary step is the thing lending the most credence to Cox. I have an officer at the scene saying she was sober, and a bunch of nothing-speak from school officials. You can choose to have your doubts, but a fair-minded person can not side against the girl with the current facts — especially since this story was retracted since published at 10 am.

      • Let's calm down and think rationally....   October 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM

        I cannot explain the officer’s actions or comments. They are the #1 piece of evidence in support of her story – I concur. But any comment form an officer makes no sense whether he is right (she was 1000% sober) or he is wrong. With what 45 kids at the party there is no way anyone could have checked them all and vouch for their sobriety (or lack thereof). I do not think I have ever seen a random officer making a direct quote on a ‘suspect’ (for lack of a better term) in the press or in email. Especially without a real sobriety test, Opens a can of worms. I would bet money he gets reprimanded.

        • Thomas   October 22, 2013 at 4:03 PM

          Wait a minute, police officers are trained to detect someone’s sobriety without a “real sobriety test”. In his statement, he says he spent time with Erin and said that Erin “did not have the slightest odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from her person. She was polite, articulate, steady on her feet.” Right now, I’ll take the word of a policeman who is on the record over “unnamed sources” and HS kids on Facebook.

        • anon   October 23, 2013 at 8:37 AM

          Seems to me he realized she was the outlier at the party and felt responsible to exonerate her.

  26. Pingback: Erin Cox story descends into smears and retractions | Media Nation

  27. Pingback: Erin Cox, Teen Punished For ‘Rescuing’ Drunk Friend From Party, Probably Lied

  28. LadyG   October 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM is awesome!!!!! a $2000 reward, really??? If I were a teacher at North Andover, I would be packing my bags and getting the hell out of there while the getting was good!

  29. snoebay   October 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM

    North Andover, noses so high in the air they can’t smell their own stink !

  30. NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM …… I never thought Tommy Duggan would be so easily bullied by the likes of Wendy Murphy. Wendy could not get what she wanted so lets embarrass the school. Easy way to solve this whole issue. Subpoena the phone records and check the texts. If Wendy decides to sue the school it will all come out. She could even get disbarred over this whole scam. In the original Herald article (written by Wendy Murphy) they claim that she was summonsed to court. Maybe she just did not show up today?

    • Tom Duggan   October 22, 2013 at 5:54 PM

      While I do feel bullied the reason we printed the retraction was because what we published was that she was slated to be in court and she wasn’t there. she was in school today. If her name was called on the docket I would LOVE to have that information from someone who can prove it. But we do not have any information that Erin was there and no “evidence” that she was called or summonsed.

  31. anotherNAparent   October 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

    Supposedly, she just did not show up today. I heard her name was called. Not surprised though because media was around the courthouse, and really, as her parent and attorney, I would have not shown up with all the rest of those other kids either. Reporters were outside the doors, though, and I think they got some interviews.

    As for the police report saying she didn’t have any odor of alcohol, I was there that night, yes my kid was at the party. First, all of the girls behaved cooperatively and politely before being picked up by their parents. NO ONE “drove their drunk friend home.” The statement by the police officer that she didn’t appear intoxicated and didn’t have any odor of alcohol on her could have been said for any of the girls, who by the way all pretty much look alike, there were at least half a dozen or more girls who are all the same size, wear the same makeup, all have the same long brown hair and dress alike and they all look the same to me as well.

    I think and this is just my personal opinion that the police officer was just being kind to a girl who had to appear for a summons and it came back to bite him when this attorney used it in a very unexpected way. I certainly can’t imagine any officer of the law getting up close to any underage girl in a crowd situation and making an individual effort to inhale of her breath very deeply to make sure there was not the “slightest” odor of alcohol. More likely they kept a very proper and official distance and my experience once I was there was that they were physically very professional officers. They weren’t making special efforts to sniff individuals or get close to kids or anything. They just wanted to make sure all the kids were safe. Just saying.

    An otherwise good school district who was only following the same rules that all the other districts followed with the kids they had just got burned on this one by the national media. Time will tell.

    • Tom Duggan   October 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      If anyone can get me information that she was CALLED in court today I would LOVE to see it or hear it from someone who was there. I do not like being given bad information but what i hate even MORE is retracting something that turns out to be true. In the ten years we have been in business we have NEVER “retracted” a story. The only reason we did so today is because she was not in court as we were told she would be. If it turns out her name was called ITS ON!

      • anotherNAparent   October 22, 2013 at 6:36 PM

        I was there. Our kids were called about 6 at a time to go in with parents to have charges read with a clerk. Everything very professional, we were very fortunate to have these public officials treat our kids with every courtesy while at the same time making them understand that they were violating the law and there were going to be serious consequences. No arguments whatsoever were raised by any parents. All kids conducted themselves very well and were very sorry for their actions.

        Erin’s name was called with one group. She was not there, she was simply not present.

        • anon   October 23, 2013 at 8:48 AM

          You aren’t using your real name (nor am I), so your testimony is useless. Still, it doesn’t matter, since the Cox family’s original case stated that “everyone” received a summons.

        • anon   October 23, 2013 at 8:49 AM

          You aren’t using your real name (nor am I), so your testimony is useless. Still, it doesn’t matter, since the Cox family’s original case stated that “everyone” received a summons.

      • NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 6:41 PM

        Tom Duggan — Why don’t you look up the 18 year old students who were at the party and ask them? Their names are in the article in the Citizen. They are legally adults and can speak on their own behalf. I think you will regret retracting your story. Here is a link to the original story….

        • Tom Duggan   October 22, 2013 at 10:24 PM

          I already do but because she was not there and I could not get the Juvenile records, or someone who was there ON the record I had no choice, our says she was supposed to be there and she wasn’t. Nobody else had come forward to say her name was called, if it was. For sure we are not going to stop reporting on this story if people come forward on the record but because we could not use the officer’s names we had no choice but to retract that part of the story. I am hoping to get the chance to set the record straight one way or the other.

          • anon   October 23, 2013 at 8:45 AM

            Tom, I seriously hope you are not putting much credence in facebook posts and supposed text messages. You realize I could easily create a screen cap of a text from “Tom Duggan” that says “I like to rape puppies”, right?

        • anon   October 23, 2013 at 8:43 AM

          So you are asking him to go on a witch hunt and ask kids weeks later after this thing has taken on a life of its own and then pit the testimony of drunk teens against the written statement of an officer on the scene? The only thing that sticks out to me from the original story you posted is the part where it says the mother was unaware of the party.

  32. Annonymous   October 22, 2013 at 5:51 PM

    I blame al perry, he started the whole school committee mess. Kidding not kidding.

  33. NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

    Tom Duggan — Wendy Murphy is a pro at working the media to her advantage. She is playing you for a fool. Call her up and ask her straight out if Erin received a summons. I bet she won’t answer you. She sent you her press release and you printed it just as the herald did in the first article.

    • Mark Dougan   October 22, 2013 at 6:44 PM

      So, you allege Erin received a summons. I’m not saying you are lying, but if so, we have a huge issue here. Let me explain:

      I summons, in the laws’ eyes, is an arrest. Not an in-custody arrest, but an arrest nonetheless. To make an arrest, an officer needs Probable Cause. So, in essence, what you are saying is that the police had probable cause for the arrest of Erin Cox.

      The email from the same police department stated that there was absolutely no reason to believe that Erin Cox was drinking. From these facts, if Erin Cox did receive a summons, there are two possibilities, and only two possibilities:

      1. Erin Cox was arrested without probable cause. Or,
      2. The officer lied and had no real probable cause for her arrest.

      Again, I’m not saying you are lying, but I think perhaps you have your facts wrong. If you don’t have your facts wrong, then the police have some serious explaining to do.

      • NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

        The email was a personal email and not from the police department. It is not an official statement and the police officer is most likely going to be in trouble for communicating with a lawyer when the case is pending. Stay in Florida and mind your own business.

        • Mary Hayes   October 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM

          Go get ’em!! LOVE your response to crazy FL guy who knows NOTHING about what went down. Best comment I’ve seen all day. This story is a sham on many levels.

      • grumpygrouper   October 22, 2013 at 7:11 PM

        Mark, if the ‘summons’ is a summons to a clerk magistrate’s hearing (for a misdemeanor commited outside police presence, or at the discretion of the police to afford a person the opportunity for said hearing), it is NOT the equivalent of probable case, and certainly not akin to an arrest. It is, rather, an application for a criminal complaint, which like ALL applications must be reviewed by a magistrate.

        Arrests are reviewed when police reports are brought to the clerk’s counter. Summonses for arraignment…same thing. Summonses FOR a magistrate’s hearing are reviewed by the magistrate, and complaints will issue if and only if the magistrate finds probable cause.

        • R.B.   October 22, 2013 at 9:45 PM

          A summons is a mandatory appearance and therefore an arrest in the laws eyes. You cant write a summons unless you have probable cause to believe a crime was committed. This crime is not a misdemeanor exception, you are right but the summons is the probable cause affidavit. Otherwise you are not compelled to be present.

        • LFOD   October 22, 2013 at 9:52 PM

          God I like this guy:

    • Fed up with this Story   October 23, 2013 at 8:26 AM

      Wendy Murphy never said Erin did not receive a summons. She in fact did. What Wendy Murphy said was Erin did not appear in court. That is true. A minor does not have to appear in court. They are allowed to stay in school and be represented in court by a parent or lawyer. Once again, just because she wasn’t there doesn’t mean she didn’t receive a summons.

  34. NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM … It appears the (John) Mark Dougan above has a criminal history of his own. His credibility is definitely in question.

    • NA Parent   October 22, 2013 at 7:35 PM … Another interesting piece of info on the troll (John) Mark Dougan.

    • Jenny R   October 22, 2013 at 8:46 PM

      I read the report you reference. His credibility is in question because he video taped a police officer breaking the law? Too funny

  35. LFOD   October 22, 2013 at 9:53 PM

    God I like this guy:

  36. Sami   October 22, 2013 at 10:10 PM

    The guy that started the shame site flies his own plane and is a writer and a total bad a$$. I want to meet this guy so mabye he can fly up here and get me out of this crappy town and bring me to florida cause i dont want to spend the winter here

  37. John   October 23, 2013 at 7:25 AM

    It’s Obama’s fault

  38. dawg the stupid hunter   October 23, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    Why is everyone going after this girl for lying when she obviously didn’t and not going after the guy who wrote the article with no facts and lied?
    Seriously people

  39. dawg the stupid hunter   October 23, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    anyone else here noticed yet that anyone that disagrees with Tom Duggan or calls him out for his lies is blocked from posting or their comments removed entirely?? If Tom stood by his original, edited and re-edited story then he would welcome debate in his comment forum.

  40. Pingback: Erin Cox, Part 3: Innuendo and Hearsay | Stately McDaniel Manor

  41. Altitude Vapor Lounge   January 2, 2022 at 9:06 PM

    Does anyone know Mid Cities Vapor store based in 2520 N Dirksten Pkwy offers eliquid manufactured by Green Rush eLiquid? I have emailed them at