What statements have Stamford school officials, law enforcement, or witnesses given about the voicemails and incident?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Stamford reporting identifies at least two separate voicemail- or call-related episodes in local school history: a 2007 case in which Candace Owens says four boys left threatening voicemails that led to a police and FBI investigation and a school-settlement, and a 2022 “swatting” hoax call that triggered a brief district-wide lockdown later deemed a hoax within 16 minutes [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention any other specific recent voicemails or statements from Stamford school officials, law enforcement, or witnesses beyond these accounts [1] [2] [3].
1. The Owens voicemails: the victim’s account and ensuing investigations
Candace Owens has publicly described a 2007 episode at Stamford High in which “a group of anonymous boys called my cell phone and left me a series of voicemails,” an incident she says set off police and FBI involvement and shaped her later activism [1] [2]. Owens’ narrative is consistent across local profiles: she stayed out of school for weeks, a friend or acquaintance was later arrested as part of the probe, and her family later sued the Stamford Board of Education, receiving a settlement [2] [1].
2. Law enforcement’s role in the Owens-era reporting — what the public record shows
Local coverage notes that Stamford police and the FBI investigated the 2007 matter; one 17‑year‑old was arrested during that inquiry, according to reporting [2]. The sources supplied do not include direct contemporaneous police statements or detailed charging documents in the public excerpts provided here, only that law enforcement involvement occurred and an arrest followed [2]. Available sources do not mention Stamford police releasing the voicemail recordings themselves in that matter [2] [1].
3. School officials’ response in the Owens episode — claims and consequences
Owens and subsequent reporting say Stamford Public Schools were taken to task by her family’s legal action, resulting in a settlement of $37,500, which indicates the district faced at least a civil claim over its handling of the events [2]. Owens has said a teacher urged her to tell the principal and that she felt compelled to stay out of school amid escalating gossip — the reporting frames these as central elements of her account [1] [2]. The supplied reporting does not include a contemporaneous official statement from the Stamford Board of Education describing specific steps they took at the time beyond the later settlement outcome [2] [1].
4. The 2022 “swatting” hoax: police timeline and district statements
A separate Stamford incident occurred on Oct. 21, 2022, when a threatening call prompted a district-wide alert and lockdown; the Stamford Police Department vetted the call and determined within 16 minutes that it was a hoax, characterizing it as a “swatting” prank and coordinating with other Fairfield County districts and federal partners as needed [3]. City and school officials publicly emphasized that safety protocols worked and said they were “satisfied with the way the Stamford Public Schools and Emergency Services handled this situation” [3].
5. Witness statements and media framing: what we do and don’t see
In both episodes, the public record offered in the supplied sources centers on a victim’s personal account (Owens) and official institutional responses (police and district statements about the swatting hoax). Witness testimony beyond Owens’ own recounting — for example, contemporaneous statements from classmates, teachers beyond the cited teacher who encouraged reporting, or recorded voicemail content — is not present in the current reporting excerpts [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention release of voicemail recordings or transcripts to the public [1] [2].
6. Competing perspectives and open questions
Reporting captures competing elements: Owens’ account and civil settlement imply the district’s handling was legally vulnerable, while the 2022 municipal statements emphasize rapid vetting and interagency cooperation that minimized disruption [2] [3]. The sources do not include a full accounting from Stamford Public Schools about corrective actions in the Owens matter, nor do they provide prosecutorial records or full police incident logs in either case; those omissions leave factual gaps about investigative details and decision-making timelines [2] [3].
7. What to look for next — records and verification
To move beyond the gaps in the provided reporting, seek contemporaneous police press releases, juvenile-court charging documents, the Board of Education’s communications at the time of the Owens case, and any FOIA/release of voicemail audio or transcripts. The supplied sources do not contain those documents; obtaining them would be necessary to corroborate specifics such as which officials said what, exactly when, and whether recordings were preserved or released [2] [3] [1].