Carrie O’Connor
Posted by Webmaster in Counselors, FE-MV, Georgia, High Schools, Not Guilty
(8/14/07 - Initial BBT Report)
Carrie O’Connor, 34, of Mount Vernon, Georgia and a Montgomery County High School guidance counselor has been indicted on allegations that she had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male student.

Reportedly, Christopher Bowman, a former teacher at the school, reported O’Connor’s alleged behavior to the school’s juvenile probation officer and to the Georgia Professional Standards Commission claiming that the relationship started when O’Connor and the student were returning from a basketball game in Macon. Bowman allegedly quoted the student as indicating that he and O’Connor had sex in O’Connor’s car and in her home.
Allegedly the sexual relationship between O’Connor and the boy occurred between January and July of this year.
O’Connor’s mother, school superintendent Dale Clark, has been quoted in the media as stating that her daughter is entitled to continue working at the high school until she is found guilty of the charge. Clark’s statement is contradicted by officials with other school systems that say that a school employee under indictment can be placed on administrative leave with pay until the issue is resolved.
It is being reported by Vidalia Communications that:
Last week Montgomery High School principal Luke Smith reassigned the student involved to the Tri-County Alternative School after the GBI said the student and Mrs. O’Connor were to have no contact. A day later he was re-admitted to the high school after his lawyer objected to the school’s decision.
Also, according to the same Vidalia Communications report, Mrs. Clark is under investigation by the Professional Standards Commission for possible violation of the Code of Ethics for Educators.
Carrie O’Connor was released from the Irwin County jail on $20,000 mid-day Tuesday following her Monday night arrest.
A report dated today by WTOC in Savannah quotes Montgomery County High School Principal Luke Smith as saying in reference to O’Connor “She’s not here today, but she has been. She’s been here since school started. If she shows up here, as far as I can tell, she will be allowed to work until further notice.”
The following is the OPINION of the webmaster of Bad Bad Teacher:
The initial reports of this case raise very grave issues regarding both the treatment of the alleged victim and the appearance of preferential treatment for the accused on the part of the school and school system administration.Both issues appear, in the opinion of this writer, to arise from the fact that the mother of the accused is the Superintendent of the school district in which the illegal activity is alleged to have taken place and with a student of that district.
That a school principal would attempt to transfer the alleged victim from the school, leaving the alleged criminal in place is simply outrageous and grossly inexcusable and should be grounds for evaluation of the principal’s fitness to retain the position and in fact grounds to evaluate his employment with the school district.
The very appearance of preferential treatment for the accused simply owing to the fact that “her mommy” is the Superintendent of the school system is grounds for the Superintendent to totally step-aside from everything involved with this criminal case and to possibly step-down from her position with the school system.
When it is alleged that children are being victimized by school employees the last thing that society needs, wants or deserves is a family member of the accused in the highest position of authority in the school system.
Update 9/12/07:
The Ethics Committee of the Georgia Professional Standards Commission has recommended that the state revoke the professional credentials of school superintendent Dale Clark and her daughter Carrie O’Connor.
The committee recommends that O’Connor’s credentials be revoked in light of her having been indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old male student. The committee recommends that Clark’s credentials be revoked for her alleged failure to report the inappropriate sexual contact between her daughter and the student, and for the alleged misuse of public funds by permitting family members of school system employees to use school supplied cell phones.
The full Georgia Professional Standards Commission will consider the committee’s recommendations at a meeting tomorrow in Atlanta. Should the Commission vote to revoke either or both women’s credentials it will effectively terminate their employment by the school system, although both will have the option to appeal and/or pursue the matter in the courts.
Update 9/18/07:
The Georgia Professional Standards Commission voted last week to take away the teaching credentials of Carrie O’Connor and those of her mother, Superintendent Dale Clark.
Reportedly O’Connor says that she and her mother plan to appeal the commission’s ruling. They have 30 days to request a hearing before an administrative law judge.
1/31/08 - Trial Scheduled But May Be Delayed
According to a Vidalia Communications report the trial of Carrie O’Connor is currently scheduled for February 11th, however her attorney is requesting a continuance owing to complications following surgery.
04/04/08 - Civil Lawsuit Dropped
The mother of the alleged victim having previously filed lawsuit for $2 million against the Montgomery County Board of Education, the teacher and the school superintendent has withdrawn that lawsuit.
A jury trial for Carrie O’Connor is currently expected in either August 2008 or February 2009.
06/30/08 - Update
The bond revocation hearing for Carrie O’Conner which was set for June 27th has been delayed until July 23rd.
This is the second delay of the hearing. The first delay took place when O’Connor’s attorney asked the judge for more time to prepare. The second delay is reportedly due to illness. The state is seeking to revoke O’Connor’s bond on allegations that she violated her conditions of bond.
On the criminal case, O’Connor has waived her arraignment and entered a not guilty plea.
O’Connor’s alleged victim and his mother are reportedly attempting to obtain a criminal warrant against O’Connor’s mother, Dale Clark, on allegations that she made terroristic threats against them.
The attorney for the mother of the alleged victim who withdrew her civil lawsuit in Montgomery County Superior Court last March has filed a similar lawsuit in federal court. The attorney said, “I have lost faith in the prospect of getting any kind of impartial proceeding in Montgomery County”.
07/24/08 - Carrie O’Connor Jailed
According to a Vidalia Communications report the judge has revoked the bond of Carrie O’Connor and ordered her jailed pending trial, currently set for August.
Reportedly the judge revoked her bond after listening to a “profanity laced tape” allegedly of O’Connor speaking on the telephone with the alleged victim in direct violation of a no-contact order by the judge.
O’Connor is currently being held in the Irwin County Detention Center.
08/14/08 - Trial May Be Delayed, O’Connor Still Jailed
According to a Vidalia Communications report, the attorney for Carrie O’Connor has notified the judge that she is still under a doctor’s care and likely will not be ready for O’Connor’s trial scheduled for next week.
O’Connor’s attorney is seeking a delay in the trial and also the release of her client on “house arrest” until trial.
O’Connor remains jailed due to her bond being revoked for violating her conditions of bond.
08/20/08 - Trial Delayed
The trial of Carrie O’Connor has been delayed until November 17th.
Earlier this week the DA’s office and O’Connor’s attorney agreed to the delay which is the due to illness on the part of O’Connor’s attorney.
O’Connor remains jailed for violating conditions of her earlier bond.
10/08/08 - O’Connor Freed On Bond Again
Reportedly Carrie O’Connor has been once again released on bond, after her $20,000
bond was reinstated by Superior Court Judge Frederick Mullis.
Judge Mullis had previously revoked O’Connor’s bond due to alleged violation of its conditions.
11/10/08 - Change of Venue Sought
Carrie O’Connor’s attorney is seeking a change of venue on behalf of his client.
O’Connor’s trial is currently set for November 17th and her attorney has filed a motion seeking to move the trial out of Montgomery County due to pre-trial publicity.
Among the various reasons O’Connor cites in seeking a change of venue is the coverage the case has received on numerous web sites including badbadteacher.com which O’Connor’s attorney claims has included 428 comments from various citizens of Montgomery County as of October 24, 2008.
11/20/08 - Trial Update
The trial of Carrie O’Connor got underway on Monday with the judge denying O’Connor’s request for a change of venue. A 6 man, 6 woman jury was selected to hear the case. The remainder of the activity on the first day consisted of the judge ruling on defense motions.
On Tuesday, the mother of the alleged victim testified. Rosa Sanchez said although her son, Fabian Pineda, initially denied having sex with O’Connor, he later confessed to her and her husband. Sanchez also testified of a meeting she and her son had with Dale Clark, the mother of Carrie O’Connor and the county school superintendent, in which Clark allegedly told her to keep her son away from O’Connor.
Also testifying on Tuesday was the alleged victim, Fabian Pineda, who testified that he and O’Connor had sex at least four times with two incidents in motels in Dublin, once in her home in Uvalda and once in an apartment in Mount Vernon. The prosecution also introduced Pineda’s cellphone records from February, 2007 which showed six calls totaling over 10 hours to O’Connor’s telephone. The defense challenged the veracity of the boy during cross-examination. The defense contends that some of the text messages allegedly between O’Connor and the boy may have been between O’Connor’s 14-year-old daughter and Pineda whom he admitted to having dated once.
The state rested its case on Wednesday. The last witness for the prosecution was Ladson O’Connor, Carrie O’Connor’s husband who testified that he turned over evidence to the GBI about contacts between his wife and the boy including pictures, letters and testimony about seeing his wife embracing Pineda at their home in Uvalda. He also told the jury he thinks he wife doesn’t need to go to jail, but needs mental help.
The defense presented its case on Wednesday. Carrie O’Connor’s brother, Benjamin Clark and his wife, Erica, testified regarding an O’Connor marriage mediation meeting that took place in February, 2007. They said that Carrie O’Connor sought a divorce because her husband was seldom at home to help with the children and was tired of doing everything herself. They testified that there was no mention of the alleged improper relationship between Carrie O’Connor and Pineda during the mediation effort. However, both reported threatening remarks made by Ladson O’Connor during the meeting including one instance where he allegedly said he would do “whatever it takes to destroy you and your family.”
Also testifying for the defense were Carrie O’Connor and her daughter Catlyn. O’Connor told jurors that her family had befriended the family of Fabian Pineda and that his sisters often visited her home in Uvalda, and that he also visited occasionally. O’Connor denied having sex with the boy told jurors that many of the text messages submitted as evidence by the state were actually sent to Pineda by her daughter using O’Connor’s cell phone.
Catlyn O’Connor testified of a relationship with Pineda. A relationship which started before the allegations about her mother. Catlyn said the relationship never went past the “peck on the cheek” stage. She also told jurors of frequent conversations, text messages, and long phone calls with the boy. She told the jury she’s never been interviewed by the GBI or any other law enforcement agency.
Apparently the question of who sent to Pineda the message that showed a picture of O’connor’s bed with the caption “Wish You Were Here” was not answered by either Carrie or Catlyn O’Connor.
On Wednesday the defense rested and the case is going to the jury Thursday morning.
11/20/08 - Not Guilty Verdict Returned
The Montgomery County Superior Court jury has returned a not guilty verdict after only 30 minutes of deliberation.
The jury foreman was quoted in Vidalia Communications report as saying, “There was not enough concrete evidence to convince they jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did actually occur”.
References:
O’Connor Seeks Change of Venue (11/06/08)
O’Connor Released on Bond (10/07/08)
O’Connor Attorney Wants Trial Delay
Bond Revoked for Guidance Counselor, Charged with Sexual Assault (07/23/08)
Former High School Counselor Jailed (07/23/08) (Note: this report will be available only on a short-term basis)
Montgomery Mother Drops Suit (04/04/08)
Superintendent on Paid Leave (9/21/07)
Superintendent, Daughter Lose Licenses in Student Sex Case (9/18/07)
State Committee Recommends Revocation for Montgomery Co Educators (9/12/07) (Note: this report will be available only on a short-term basis)
Montgomery County Guidance Counselor Arrested for Sexual Assault (8/14/07)
“High School Counselor Indicted in Montgomery Co” and “O’Conner Makes Bond” appear temporarily available on the Vidalia Communications Web Site (8/14/07)
School Counselor Indicted for Sexual Assault (8/14/07)
Your IP Address is:
71.30.7.78

Entries (RSS)
February 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I don’t think the locals wanted a guilty verdict then the Montgomery Co. school system would have to pay the student’s lawsuit if found guilty.
February 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Yeah sure the daughter used her mother’s phone to send text messages. Yeah right. I am betting the each person in the family had phones for years. Shame on the state for not getting whether or not the daughter had her own phone and phone records from the family…
December 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Many people in Montgomery County believe the reason there was not sufficient evidence to convict Ms. O’Connor is because the mother, Mrs. Clark, forced Ms. O’connor’s daughter to lie on the witness stand. It is a widely held belief, and I don’t think Ms. O’Connor will ever be considered “Innocent”. Most people in the county understand “Not Guilty” and “Innoncent” is not the same thing. We also see a lot of “Jesus” references on this site concerning this case. And yes, Jesus knows and will judge, and woa to those who would tamper with a child’s mind using “guilt” tactics of “how will you feel if your Mother goes to jail and you could get her off if you will just say it was YOU and the boy and not her and the boy.” Or to a mother who would say pretend the counselor made advances to you so we can sue and get alot of money. We don’t know what actually happened, or which child was actually telling the truth, but Jesus Knows. It is strange Ms. O’Connor’s daughter did not come forward LONG before when her mother languished in Jail., and put an end to this charade long before it got started if she was actually telling the truth. But Jesus REally KNOWS why this “last minute” revelation Happened. Jesus knows it all. And there is a special place in Hell for liers, be it the boy who accused Ms. O’Connor or Ms. O’Connor, or her daughter. Rest assured that place was prepared for the One or Ones that lied. We don’t know Which ONE lied but JESUS know. And we do know ONE of them lied.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Jesus walks…this is as unbiased a presentation on this subject as you will find anywhere and 10 times more complete.
So … someone comes to “badbadteacher.com” and sees the large, bright green “NOT GUILTY” banner next to a name followed by a summary of a not guilty verdict with links to comprehensive news stories that detail the NOT GUILTY verdict. Your concern is that the term “badbad” at the top of the screen will override this mountain of information?
*sigh*
December 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m gonna start a site called BadBadWebmaster.com.
Best wishes with the effort.
- webmaster
December 16th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Webmaster, if you want to appear fair and balanced as you so claim. That you are trying to just help “get information out” then you need to change the name of your website. First, even though many of the people on here are guilty or have pleaded, more people than not argue that they were actually skilled teachers. So, if by your title then you’re saying they are “bad, bad” teachers due to their morals then you should remove any charges dismissed or non guilty participant. Maybe you can open a sister website called “we were wrong, wrong about teacher.com”? You cannot claim to follow unbiased news coverage when everytime someone gets in your mind a light sentence you comment on how unfair it is, but never how unfair a false accusation is. Finally, the very name of the website implies a biased opinion. I’m sure the webmaster will compare this to the Gestapo or Gulag again but seriously admit that you are helping ruin some lives in your coverage. Merry Christmas:)
(1) The name of this web site will not be changed.
(2) Our normal policies regarding those found not guilty or against whom charges have been dropped will continue to apply.
Thanks for your input and a Merry Christmas to you also.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Well. I guess nobody else wants to comment. When will they completely take her name and picture off of this Website? If she really is not guilty, then she no longer deserves the status of Bad Bad Teacher does she?
There is just so much more to this, there has to be more.
Webmaster’s note: We have no plans to take our report on this case down. Please see the “FAQ’s” page, question/answer 10 for reference.
By leaving the coverage up while denoting the “Not Guilty” outcome of the case we provide a full record of the case. If we take down our coverage, it will remain in various internet archives including Google, MSN, AOL, Ask and others and will be displayed to those conducting searches on the name, basically from now on. Instead of showing the final outcome the archive will only show the earlier phases of the case, i.e. arrest, arraignment and so forth.
We will take down coverage of cases ending with a “Not Guilty” verdict or with “Charges Dismissed” but ONLY when requested to do by by the former accused or their attorney and then only once they state that they understand the implication of internet archives. - webmaster
November 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
If the daughter sent the text messages, why did she not tell the judge
it was her? Why did she allow her mother to go back to jail?
In keeping with site policies as outlined in the “Comments” page the last name of the person purported to have left this comment has been altered to an initial only by the site moderator.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
well there is O.J. and now there is Carrie!!!!!!!
November 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The fact that she was acquitted by a jury in ten minutes never makes the news.
How sad. She will have to live with a false accusation the rest of her life.