BREAKING: AbleChild has just sent the State of Georgia a public request Regarding Mass Killing: Apalachee High School We will be on the Georgia WARROOM at 4pm to discuss this letter and then write the Story for distribution. - Links will be provided in our story that goes to the gateway pundit. This is pre-publication work and thought the public should know immediately. Attn: Brad Smith [email protected] (please feel free to write your own letter) AbleChild, a publicly funded national nonprofit organization recognized under Section 501(c)(3), is requesting a detailed written explanation of the Piedmont Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office’s decision not to prosecute Marcee Gray, including how prosecutors evaluated her administration of her own prescription Zoloft to Colt before the Apalachee High School killings. What role did the State of Georgia have in the mental-health treatment of Marcee Gray? This letter and your response are intended for public release. On July 28, 2026, following Colt’s sentencing, you reiterated that Marcee Gray would not face charges in connection with the killings. You explained that the evidence did not establish the necessary connection under Georgia’s proximate-cause law. Reporting also indicated that a child-welfare investigation remained open while you did not intend to pursue criminal-abuse charges. The Piedmont Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office prosecuted Colin Gray for his role in providing Colt access to the firearm. The State also called Marcee Gray to testify against him. These circumstances demand a clear explanation of the evidence and legal standards that justified treating the parents’ conduct differently. Marcee Gray testified in open court that she gave Colt crushed Zoloft prescribed to her. Please explain what investigators established about the mother’s treating psychiatrist or other prescribing clinician, the dosage she administered to Colt, and the timing and frequency of that administration. Was any clinician aware of or authorizing her to give her prescription medication to Colt? Why was the State not concerned about a mother giving her own prescription Zoloft to her 14-year-old child before the killings? If the State investigated that conduct, please explain its findings and why no charges followed. Given Marcee Gray’s testimony that she administered her own prescription Zoloft to Colt before the killings, please identify the legal and evidentiary basis for the Piedmont Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office’s decision not to prosecute Marcee Gray. Specifically, how did prosecutors evaluate that conduct in light of the FDA warnings and case history in which mind-altering psychiatric drugs were found to be contributing factors in lethal behavior? Zoloft’s boxed warning identifies an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in pediatric and young adult patients. Its Medication Guide directs patients to call their healthcare provider immediately, or 911 in an emergency, for the following symptoms, especially when new, worsening, or concerning: Attempts to commit suicide; Acting on dangerous impulses; Acting aggressive or violent; Thoughts about suicide or dying; New or worse depression; New or worse anxiety or panic attacks; Feeling agitated, restless, angry, or irritable; Trouble sleeping; An increase in activity or talking more than normal; Other unusual changes in behavior or mood. These are explicit warnings about behavior, including violence and dangerous impulses. How were they considered in evaluating the medication administered to Colt? Were the mother and her treating clinician aware of these warnings, and what instructions accompanied her prescription? Identifying the firearm as the instrument that inflicted the fatal injuries does not resolve the question of causation or the factors contributing to Colt’s behavior. The legal history warrants a substantive response: In Estates of Tobin v. SmithKline Beecham, a Wyoming federal jury found Paxil to be a proximate cause of a murder-suicide and allocated 80% of responsibility to the manufacturer. The court sustained the verdict against post-trial challenges. That percentage represented allocated legal responsibility. In Australia’s Regina v. Hawkins, Justice Barry O’Keefe stated: “I am satisfied that but for the Zoloft he had taken, he would not have strangled his wife.” Hawkins had taken substantially more than his prescribed dose and was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. In a Manitoba youth murder proceeding, a judge accepted that Prozac contributed to a teenager’s otherwise uncharacteristic killing of a friend. The finding arose in proceedings concerning youth versus adult sentencing. In Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline, a federal jury awarded $3 million in a paroxetine-related suicide case. The judgment was reversed on federal-preemption grounds. That outcome raises an accountability concern: federal law barred recovery despite a favorable jury verdict. The legal protection afforded the manufacturer did not resolve the underlying medical question of medication-related harm. In the Wesbecker litigation, plaintiffs alleged that Prozac contributed to a workplace shooting that killed eight people before the shooter killed himself. An initial defense verdict was followed by disclosure of a settlement reached during trial; the disposition was subsequently changed to “dismissed as settled with prejudice.” The settlement was not a finding of causation, but it is essential to an accurate account of the case. The Shane Clancy inquest in Ireland examined citalopram exposure and returned an open verdict, rather than an affirmative finding of medication-related causation. David Carmichael was found not criminally responsible for killing his son because of a mental disorder. He subsequently attributed his condition to Paxil; the material reviewed does not establish that his criminal judgment made that causal finding. In Christopher Pittman’s murder trial, the jury rejected his argument that Zoloft rendered him involuntarily intoxicated when, at age 12, he killed his grandparents. That contrary outcome is also part of the record. Why was this case history and the medication’s warning information apparently ignored—or, if considered, what findings supported the decision not to prosecute Marcee Gray? Please explain whether investigators sought relevant evidence from Marcee’s prescribing clinician and whether that clinician testified. Was her treatment provided through a Georgia state-operated or state-funded service? Reporting described behavioral improvement after both medication treatment and restrictions on contact with his mother. This raises questions about institutional overlap and potential conflicts of interest. Please identify the prescribing provider, administering facility or contractor, and agency responsible for authorizing and overseeing Colt’s medication. Was the same provider or provider network involved in Marcee’s treatment through Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services or another state agency? If so, what safeguards ensured an independent evaluation of the medication evidence? Did Marcee receive immunity, a non prosecution agreement, a cooperation agreement, or any assurance concerning potential charges? If so, please identify its scope, whether it was disclosed to the defense and court, and whether it preceded her testimony against Colin Gray. Is the child-welfare investigation now closed? Please distinguish whether the decision not to prosecute Marcee Gray reflected a finding that no offense occurred, insufficient evidence, or prosecutorial discretion not to bring otherwise supportable charges. Your July 28 remarks also indicated that some potential offenses could fall outside Barrow County’s jurisdiction. Were any findings referred to another district attorney or investigative agency? If so, please identify the receiving agency and the status of that referral, to the extent publicly disclosable. The central issue is accountability. Please provide a written response addressing these questions and identify publicly available filings, agreements, investigative findings, or charging memoranda explaining the Piedmont Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office’s decisions. If information cannot be disclosed, please identify the specific reason. Four people were killed. Their families and the public deserve an explanation grounded in evidence and law, not an unexplained distinction between the conduct of two parents.  Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Sheila Matthews CEO & Cofounder Ablechild.org

Filed under....Never Solved: Very interesting timing..but again, this does not confirm this was Thomas Crooks. In fact, where are his glasses? The autopsy failed to explain the missing eye glasses (see our article below) The chain of custody of the body was compromised. Unfortunately the PA State Police report has never been released and classified, from our understanding. In fact, the very weird thing is that State Police Chief Paris retired and was then hired by the FBI. The FBI never solved the attempted assassination of President Trump & the killing of, now, two innocent rally attendees. ablechild.org/2026/07/10/but…

It really stems from the children & family services and the behavioral health contracts the States have with them. Our lawmakers either don't have the courage to stand up, or they are part of the problem. The best case is they are completely ignorant - Let's educate them!

Buyer beware. treatment resistant? If we could only bottle up spirituality and sell that...

Connecticut's Reality Check. In response to the democrat's press release post today...Why would even matter how Ryan Fazio voted? The Democrats hold the power in the house, senate, and executive branch. Let's be honest here. Ryan Fazio is really a Democrat anyway, there is but one party, thus Connecticut is a failed State. Ben Proto, the chairman of the GOP in CT has not produced a win for republicans in years & years. One should really ask why? MOB run? We think so. AbleChild cut our teeth in Connecticut & know you all very well...

The behavioral health industry has taken over special education and pushing beyond. It isn't so "special" anymore. The entire debate was based on questions that were so meaningless to only appeal to those who want to ignore the failed state staring them right in their faces.

Coercion!

Both are correct here. Alcoholism is NOT a disease. It was “declared” a disease by the medical association to “treat” it with mind-altering drugs and to expand government spending and experiments on self-declared alcoholics. However, it is a threefold condition of the mind, body, and spirit in which some people who drink have such a reaction to alcohol that they lose the “willpower to stop.” Also, it is a “self-identifying” condition; no one can tell you that you have alcoholism. The best cure is to not take the first drink and work with other alcoholics in a spiritual way, getting out of yourself. The cure comes from within. No one can cure alcoholism; it can only be cured by the person suffering finding the willingness to stop and seek help. It has everything to do with the WILL. Alcoholism attacks the will like a snake, and some people have such a reaction that no human aid can reach them. Therefore, only a belief in something greater than yourself can save an alcoholic from the deadly grip of its chemical hold. The body cannot react alone. It is one of the most baffling phenomena known to man. Great discussion. The reality is that Matthew can be the message itself for an alcoholic to take action. May he rest in peace. This is written by an Alcoholic. Self Identified, drug free!

FAILED STATE OF CONNECTICUT: What stupid questions. Connecticut has hundreds of children trapped in State care being forced drugged onto multiple psychiatric drugs - some as young as a year old. What a Failed State!