Survivor Accounts

This section preserves accounts shared directly with the TurnbridgeWatch website by former clients, current clients, witnesses, parents, loved ones, and former staff.

The archive distinguishes between what a source personally experienced, what the source personally witnessed, and what the source learned from somebody else. None of these accounts should be read as adjudicated findings. They are testimony and investigative leads that should be tested through incident reports, clinical files, staffing records, police and EMS records, hospital records, communications, billing records, surveillance footage, and additional witnesses.

Names and identifying information are presented according to each source’s stated preferences. Some people authorized a first name or public username. Others are identified only by initials or an anonymous description. Preliminary outreach is not presented as completed testimony.

Actual-Search3197 — Women’s Program, 2019

Actual-Search3197 reports attending Turnbridge from approximately June through December 2019. She entered at age 24 and turned 25 during the placement.

Before Turnbridge, she had completed treatment at Silver Hill Hospital, including approximately two weeks at a higher level of care followed by 28 days in a mental-health residential program. Her family was allegedly told that Turnbridge would likely last about three months and that she could return to work after approximately one month. She instead remained for about seven months.

She reports that:

she was promised access to ice hockey and basketball, but says no ice-hockey program and no meaningful basketball access were available;
despite completing prior treatment, she was required to begin at the lowest program level;
there appeared to be little individualized assessment before she was told she would likely remain for a long time;
requests to address a significant breakup in therapy were repeatedly deferred with instructions to “table it”;
she was denied permission to attend an outside support group addressing complicated family relationships;
she was required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, obtain a sponsor, and identify as an alcoholic despite not believing she had an alcohol-use disorder;
and she experienced the program as coercing clients into a substance-use identity that did not always fit their circumstances.

Although she was an adult with savings, she says she did not believe she had any realistic ability to discharge. Her mother allegedly relied heavily on Turnbridge’s recommendations and was told it was unsafe for her to leave. She ultimately departed by packing her belongings during a Christmas visit and refusing to return.

Her account also includes:

an alleged delay of approximately two months before obtaining a rescue inhaler;
difficulty accessing food sent by her family;
delayed access to hygiene products;
restrictions on exercise;
searches of her room and phone;
staff allegedly telling her they laughed at personal photographs found on her phone;
a laptop allegedly being lost while in Turnbridge’s possession;
denial of a requested case-manager change;
being compared to a homeless woman struggling with methamphetamine addiction and told she was no better;
discouragement from returning to her career in finance;
a requirement that she pay more than $1,000, plus airfare, meals, and travel expenses, for a sober companion to accompany her to a job interview;
restrictions on purchasing a car and resulting dependence on Uber;
and her perception that scholarship clients progressed more quickly than privately paying clients.

She describes lasting emotional, professional, and financial harm. Public versions may identify her only as Actual-Search3197 unless she separately authorizes broader identification.

Annie — Men’s Adolescent Program, 2022

Annie is a Black transgender woman who reports that she was placed in Turnbridge’s men’s adolescent program in 2022 while primarily seeking mental-health treatment. Her account was provided through written messages and a later telephone interview.

Racial stereotyping and crisis response

Annie identifies senior clinical figure Samantha Trumata as a major reason she left.

She alleges that shortly after arriving, Trumata asked where she was from. When Annie answered Washington, D.C., Trumata allegedly guessed Southeast and said, “That’s the hood.” Annie understood the exchange as a racialized assumption about her background.

During a later house crisis involving client violence and property destruction, Annie says Trumata remained in her office rather than meaningfully de-escalating the situation. Annie acknowledges that she became furious and used harsh language, but says she opposed the group violence rather than joining it.

The following morning, Annie says she overheard Trumata describe her as having turned “real ghetto” and portray her as physically threatening. Annie further alleges that information supplied to insurance falsely characterized her as joining the attacking clients. She disputes that characterization.

Annie’s mother agreed to bring her home shortly afterward. A transport worker allegedly told her, “You’re free already—you’re a lucky one.”

Abuse of K.

Annie describes another transgender woman, identified as K., being placed in the same male environment and subjected to sustained abuse.

She reports that residents:

repeatedly deadnamed K.;
used anti-trans and anti-gay slurs;
excluded and humiliated her;
threw objects at her;
mocked Annie for doing her hair;
used Annie’s comparatively favorable treatment to deny that they were transphobic;
blamed K. after communal PlayStation access was removed;
and intensified their harassment until Annie found K. crying.

Annie says she personally witnessed two separate assaults.

In the first, a male client allegedly approached K. from behind during dinner and began beating her.

In the second, several male clients allegedly gathered at or entered K.’s room, asked whether she would fight back if hit, and then attacked her as additional clients joined. Annie says the door was open and behavioral-health technicians were nearby and should have been able to hear what was happening.

John’s alleged conduct

Annie describes grooming-like, sexualized, racialized, and coercive behavior from a male employee identified as John, whose last name remains to be confirmed.

She alleges that John:

watched her get ready from her doorway;
spoke to her in an unusually lowered or intimate manner;
commented on her appearance;
said he would have allowed her to keep a razor so she could do her eyebrows and “look good”;
said the program needed handcuffs and shackles, but that he would use them on everyone “but you”;
talked about wanting more power and being able to “show somebody what’s up”;
expressed interest in juvenile detention because he could “do what he needs to do”;
asked whether she would change for a “good Christian man” or “God-fearing man”;
made racialized assumptions about her background and dating life;
imposed consequences on other clients while telling Annie he had done so for her;
gave her his TikTok account while she remained a client;
and was regarded by other clients as a creep.

Annie interprets this as sexualized favoritism, transphobic paternalism, racial stereotyping, political pressure, coercive-power fantasies, and unequal discipline. His motive has not been independently established, but the alleged conduct is specific enough to test through staff rosters, schedules, supervision records, client notes, and disciplinary records.

Annie also reports that John stood outside the doorway during her first consensual sexual encounter, laughed, and later told another employee. That employee asked whether Annie was okay, and Annie cried. Information about the encounter allegedly circulated afterward.

Therapy, transport, supervision, and living conditions

Annie says therapy lacked accountability and alleges that her therapist discussed favorite marijuana strains while Annie’s mother was waiting for a family session.

She also reports that a transport worker called her “my prisoner.”

Additional conditions she describes include:

cameras frequently not working;
group sexual behavior among clients;
feces deliberately placed inside toilets;
urine remaining on a bathroom floor for approximately three days;
staff using a sexualized nickname for a client;
and inconsistent staff protection that favored Annie while leaving more vulnerable clients, such as K., exposed.

Public versions may identify her as Annie. Other clients remain identified by initials unless they separately authorize identification.

A.M. — Women’s Program, Approximately Ages 20–23

A.M. reports remaining at Turnbridge for approximately three continuous years, from around age 20 to age 23. Her legal name and all identifying social-media information are withheld. She is identified publicly only by the initials A.M.

A.M. says she struggled with self-harm and followed staff instructions by disclosing an urge and voluntarily surrendering her razor instead of harming herself.

According to A.M., Turnbridge responded by:

calling police;
transporting her by ambulance to a psychiatric emergency department;
and subsequently phasing her down.

She experienced the sequence as punishment for honestly seeking help.

A.M. also reports that:

she was one of two women who remained for roughly three years;
her therapist attempted to help her obtain discharge;
the therapist was later fired, although the reason and any causal connection remain unconfirmed;
she was blamed for an entire house relapsing because she relapsed first;
and the women’s-program director allegedly gave her hostile looks and refused to speak to her for approximately two weeks.

She says Turnbridge demolished her sense of safety in therapy, repeatedly broke clients down, damaged her understanding of herself, made her feel like a monster, and left her unlearning the experience every day.

A.M. has said she would like to participate in efforts concerning Turnbridge. Public use must remain initials-only unless she separately authorizes broader identification.

E.A. — Women’s Program, Age 16

E.A. is a former Turnbridge women’s-program client who requested anonymity. Public versions identify her only as E.A. Her legal name, social-media name, username, profile image, and contact information are withheld. E.A. reports that during her final months in Turnbridge residential treatment, when she was 16 years old, a male staff member sent her explicit photographs and, in her words, “practically groomed” her. She further reports that: male clients said the same employee was actively getting high; for months, she had begged and pleaded with her case manager and parents about other clients’ testimonies and events she believed were happening in real time; and her family did not understand that Turnbridge was not what they believed until similar conduct allegedly happened directly to her. E.A. has stated that she expects to regain access to the Instagram account she used at the time and may be able to provide screenshots of her messages with the staff member. Those records have not yet been supplied and should not be described as confirmed evidence until they are received and preserved. Her account raises serious questions about: staff electronic and social-media contact with minors; grooming prevention; exchange of explicit images; staff impairment or substance use; supervision and complaint handling; mandated reporting; whether her warnings to adults were documented or acted upon; whether other clients raised concerns about the same employee; and whether Turnbridge preserved staff-client communications. E.A. has described the disclosure as extremely painful. She expressed hope that survivors may heal and obtain justice, and said that knowing she is not alone makes the experience somewhat easier while also deepening the pain of recognizing how widespread the problem may have been. This is preliminary direct former-client testimony, not an adjudicated finding. The allegation that she personally received explicit photographs and experienced grooming conduct is her direct account. The allegation that the employee was getting high was attributed to male clients and remains relayed information. Any future contact must remain trauma-informed, non-pressuring, and controlled by E.A.

O.C. — Former Turnbridge Adolescent and Women’s Program Client (2023–2024)

Source and evidentiary note. O.C. is a former Turnbridge client who reports entering the program as a minor on October 6, 2023 and being fully discharged on August 6, 2024. She personally supplied a detailed written account in August 2026 after first contacting the archive through Reddit and then moving voluntarily to text message. At her request, this public account identifies her only as O.C. The allegations below are attributed to O.C. and are not presented as adjudicated findings. Where possible, the account identifies records that could confirm, refute, or contextualize what she describes.

Admission as a minor, forced transport, and the 45-day representation

O.C. reports that her parents hired people to transport her to Turnbridge against her will while she was seventeen. She states that she arrived at Turnbridge on October 6, 2023 and initially entered the Killingworth program. She says she was told that the placement would generally last approximately forty-five days.

According to O.C., she was not fully discharged until August 6, 2024. That is approximately 305 days after admission. O.C. says that on approximately her forty-eighth day she was transferred from Killingworth into adolescent extended care in North Haven, with clinical services in New Haven. The discrepancy between the forty-five-day representation and the eventual length of stay should be tested against admissions communications, transport records, contracts, parent communications, utilization-review records, insurance authorizations, and billing records. The forty-five-day statement may have referred specifically to one level of care rather than the entire course of treatment; the archive does not assume the meaning without records.

Repeated physical assaults while she was sleeping

O.C. describes three separate peer-safety incidents during adolescent extended care.

She says a newly arrived girl heard a false rumor that O.C. had sexually assaulted someone and punched O.C. while O.C. was sleeping. O.C. reports that this client was later sent out of the program.
A few weeks later, O.C. says the girl who had originated or spread the false sexual-assault rumor wanted to get kicked out and punched O.C. while O.C. was sleeping. O.C. says that client remained in the program for a period afterward and, in O.C.’s view, did not receive meaningful consequences.
O.C. reports a separate conflict with a roommate after the roommate allegedly stole O.C.’s clothing. She says the roommate later threw a full plastic water bottle at O.C.’s head while O.C. was sleeping. O.C. says staff did not meaningfully resolve the situation and that they remained roommates for months afterward.

These are distinct incidents and should not be merged. Relevant records include incident reports, CCTV, house logs, staff notes, medical checks, injury documentation, roommate assignments, separation plans, safety plans, family notifications, disciplinary records, and witness accounts.

Killingworth “shit talk circle,” blocked exit, and threatened loss of privileges

O.C. identifies Killingworth, especially periods when residents were isolated together, as the worst part of her Turnbridge experience. She describes a weekly practice she calls the “shit talk circle.”

O.C. says she was frequently the principal target for many of the weeks she was there. She reports sitting in the circle while other residents screamed at her. When she tried to stand up and leave, she says people blocked the doorway, told her she would lose privileges if she left, and told her that she needed to sit there and “take it” because it would make her stronger. She says she was disproportionately bullied and subjected to this more than other girls.

This account is materially different from simply saying that group therapy felt harsh. O.C. specifically alleges attempted exit, physical blocking of the doorway, threatened privilege loss, and compelled exposure to group screaming. Records should identify the formal name of the group, curriculum, written protocol, clinical rationale, staff supervision, attendance rules, privilege consequences, complaints, and other residents who witnessed the practice.

Severe chest pain, apparent collapse, delayed escalation, and hospital transport

O.C. reports that while in the adolescent program she went to the clinic / Orange Street office complaining of severe chest pain and believed she might die. She says she “kind of” passed out on a couch and remained there for several hours while staff did little to escalate the situation.

She says staff told her to drink tea and squeeze a stress ball while she was in pain. According to O.C., she was eventually taken to a hospital and was ultimately medically okay, but she spent hours in significant pain before that transport occurred.

The allegation should be tested through clinic notes, vital signs, nursing records, staff schedules, transportation records, hospital records, EMS or ambulance records if applicable, family notifications, incident reports, and the timing of the eventual emergency evaluation.

Months of vomiting without physician evaluation

O.C. separately reports that she was vomiting for months while at Turnbridge and did not receive a physician evaluation for the problem. She describes this as part of a broader pattern in which significant medical complaints were not addressed promptly.

Relevant records include symptom reports, nursing notes, medication records, food and hydration documentation, appointment requests, physician referrals, laboratory or diagnostic testing, family communications, and any outside medical records.

Ruptured eardrum and delayed urgent-care access

O.C. says she ruptured her eardrum and that Turnbridge would not take her to urgent care for weeks, during which time the condition became significantly worse. This allegation should be evaluated through nursing notes, appointment requests, staff communications, urgent-care or ENT records, medication records, pain complaints, family notifications, and any documentation showing when staff first became aware of the injury.

Turning eighteen and transfer into the adult women’s program

O.C. says that on her eighteenth birthday she was moved into the adult women’s program, including Prospect Street, and was told she would be “fast tracked” through the phases. She says that this happened to some degree but also exposed her to more bullying from other women in the program.

O.C. later progressed through the program and spent time at the Quinnipiac / “Quinnie” house before graduating and eventually leaving Turnbridge.

Case-management miscommunication, punishment, screaming, and humiliation

O.C. says her adult-program case managers were among the worst staff she encountered. She reports repeated situations in which staff miscommunicated requirements or instructions to her, leaving her unable to complete tasks as expected, and then punished her for the resulting failure.

She describes being screamed at, yelled at, and humiliated for things she believed were not her fault. Relevant records include case-management notes, phase records, consequence or noncompliance records, communication logs, grievance records, staff schedules, and written instructions given to O.C.

Post-discharge sexual-boundary concern involving a Turnbridge program manager

O.C. reports that a few months after leaving Turnbridge, a male Turnbridge program manager named Ian approached her through Instagram. She says she knew that he worked for Turnbridge, primarily in the men’s program.

According to O.C., Ian had recently ended a relationship with another woman who had also just left the program around the same time as O.C. O.C. says Ian then messaged her and essentially asked to have sex. She says she initially found him attractive but felt the situation was strange and told him that she did not want to be his rebound. She reports that they did not continue contact afterward.

The archive does not presently identify Ian by a full name because his full identity, age, exact job title, employment dates, program assignment, prior relationship, and degree of contact with O.C. while she was a client require confirmation. Relevant records include staff rosters, employment files, supervision records, social-media or communication policies, and policies governing relationships with recently discharged former clients.

College, ongoing health problems, and dependence on family

O.C. says she had been in college but later became very sick and had to drop out. She reports ongoing health problems that have become significantly worse since her Turnbridge experience and believes Turnbridge contributed to some of that deterioration.

She currently remains financially dependent on her parents and dependent on their health insurance. She says she still lives with the people who sent her to Turnbridge and is reminded of the experience every day. She has described feeling stuck because her health problems, financial dependence, and insurance situation make moving out difficult.

Only recently recognizing the experience as traumatic

When O.C. first contacted the archive, she said that only within the previous couple of weeks had she begun to recognize that what happened to her was “actually that bad.” She described struggling to reconcile her own memories with years of being told by the people around her that Turnbridge was not that bad or that the experience was her fault.

She also said that talking about the experience was difficult but that she wanted to try, in part because she hoped documenting what happened might help prevent similar harm to other people. She later reached out to trauma therapists, contacted another former Turnbridge women’s-program client, emailed a Connecticut child-advocacy official, and expressed interest in obtaining her own Turnbridge records.

What records should exist

O.C.’s complete Turnbridge file from October 6, 2023 through August 6, 2024, including Killingworth, North Haven adolescent extended care, New Haven clinical services, Prospect Street, Quinnipiac / “Quinnie,” and every other residence or phase.
Admissions calls, transport records, contracts, brochures, parent communications, insurance authorizations, utilization-review records, billing records, and any document referring to forty-five days, extension, aftercare, or expected total duration.
Transport-company identity, transport authorization, pickup records, guardian instructions, intake documentation, and records showing any objection or resistance by O.C. while she was a minor.
Incident reports, CCTV, house logs, staff notes, medical checks, injury documentation, separation plans, safety plans, family notifications, disciplinary records, and witness accounts for each reported punch and the water-bottle incident.
Roommate assignments, room-change requests, case-management communications, and records explaining why O.C. and the roommate allegedly remained together after the bottle incident.
All records describing the Killingworth weekly group O.C. calls the “shit talk circle,” including curriculum, staff instructions, attendance expectations, privilege consequences, group notes, grievance records, staff schedules, and resident witnesses.
Clinical, nursing, symptom, vital-sign, medication, transport, hospital, emergency, urgent-care, appointment-request, and family-notification records concerning the severe chest-pain episode, apparent collapse, months of vomiting, and ruptured eardrum.
Adult-program case-management notes, phase records, consequence / noncompliance records, communication logs, grievance records, and staff schedules concerning alleged miscommunication, punishment, yelling, humiliation, and fast-tracking after O.C. turned eighteen.
Employment and staff-roster records sufficient to identify Ian, his exact title, program assignment, client contact, supervision, and policies governing sexual or romantic relationships with recently discharged former clients.
O.C.’s original Reddit and text-message testimony, timestamps, screenshots, and source-consent communications.

Evidentiary classification

O.C.’s account is direct former-client testimony concerning events that began while she was a minor. She personally reports her own transport, program progression, peer assaults, group experiences, medical complaints, staff responses, adult-program treatment, post-discharge contact, and ongoing impact. The account is not an adjudicated finding. Several allegations are unusually records-testable because hospital, urgent-care, incident, staffing, transport, admissions, insurance, and housing records may independently confirm or challenge important parts of the timeline.

A. — Women’s Program, 2017 and Post-Graduation

A. is a former Turnbridge women’s-program client who supplied a detailed written statement, photographs, screenshots, and public-record leads. She authorizes public identification only by her first initial. Her full legal identity may be shared confidentially with investigators or regulators, and she has said she is willing to speak with them directly. Program length and return to Turnbridge A. reports first entering Turnbridge in early 2017. She describes that first period as comparatively acceptable except for a central admissions issue: she says she was told she could leave after approximately one month, but after arrival learned from clients that the program was understood to last approximately one year. She returned around August 2017 and describes the second placement as “AWFUL.” She reports that the program had begun housing a large influx of minors in the women’s environment. Tom Marzilli and sexualized leadership conduct A. alleges that program director Tom Marzilli made inappropriate and sexualized comments. She describes an incident involving her friend, who was 17 at the time and had sex with a man at a meeting. According to A., Marzilli screamed at the minor and asked whether the man had “came inside her.” A. also alleges that Marzilli was barred from the women’s house after sexual involvement with a recently graduated former client who had become support staff. The archive author independently remembers hearing while enrolled at Turnbridge that Marzilli was banned from the women’s house. That independent recollection supports that a restriction was discussed, but does not independently establish the reason for it. A. supplied Colorado licensing materials concerning Thomas Paul Marzilli. The final agency order states that Colorado regulators alleged violations of statutory provisions including: failure to meet generally accepted professional standards; failure to comply with mandatory client-disclosure requirements; and a provision addressing sexual contact, sexual intrusion, or sexual penetration with a client during a therapeutic relationship or within two years afterward. The order also states that Marzilli denied the allegations and resolved the matter through voluntary surrender of his credential rather than a contested hearing establishing every allegation as proven. Gambling context and “Minus 160” A. alleges that Marzilli had a compulsive gambling problem and named a Turnbridge softball team “Minus 160,” a betting-odds reference. A photograph supplied by A. shows Marzilli wearing a red “Minus 160” team jersey at a softball field. A separate public Foxwoods Poker post dated February 13, 2016 identifies Thomas Marzilli as the chip leader in Event #12, Flight A, with 265,100 chips. The jersey photograph and poker result corroborate the public gambling context and A.’s specific recollection that gambling language was incorporated into Turnbridge culture. They do not independently establish a diagnosis of compulsive gambling. “Sex contract,” forced referral, and sexual pathologization A. states that she entered Turnbridge at 19 after using heroin since approximately age 13. She acknowledges having consensual sexual relationships with multiple women during and after the program. She alleges that Turnbridge: villainized and demonized her; called her a predator; placed her on a “sex contract”; forced her to see a sex therapist; and used institutional and reputation-management tactics against her because of her sexuality and relationships. According to A., the outside sex therapist refused to treat her because the therapist believed she was a normal young person engaging in normal behavior under the circumstances. Confidentiality, phone searches, and reputational harm A. reports that personnel told clients there was no HIPAA privacy in housing, only in clinical services. She alleges that: staff took and searched her phone, including during the night; private information was disclosed beyond legitimate need-to-know channels; Audrey Bell, who led the house, spread her personal information; her reputation was damaged throughout the New Haven recovery community; and Turnbridge attacked the professional reputation of her therapist, Lila Sussman, after Sussman left because she objected to how the program operated. The allegations concerning Sussman’s reasons for leaving and later reputational harm require direct confirmation from Sussman and employment records. Graduation, post-discharge targeting, and missing-client investigations A. says Turnbridge staged a major graduation ceremony and portrayed her as a “miracle story.” After she graduated, lived independently, and began working in finance, she alleges that the institution reversed course and warned clients about her. She reports that when girls ran away, Turnbridge repeatedly blamed or investigated her, including at least one occasion when she was outside Connecticut. She further alleges that: staff fabricated a story that she was helping move drugs through the Canner house; police sat outside her apartment while she worked from home; Turnbridge contacted her friends’ parents and her own parents with false narratives; and staff continued to treat her as a standing suspect long after she stopped engaging with clients. Text-message screenshots supplied by A. show Turnbridge-affiliated people acknowledging that staff contacted her or others while trying to locate a missing client. In one exchange, the responder stated that A. was not being blamed and that Turnbridge knew she had not been engaging with clients for a long time. In another, a responder described the outreach as “due diligence.” A. repeatedly asked to be left alone. These texts do not independently prove every broader allegation about police surveillance or drug accusations. They do corroborate that A. remained subject to institutional inquiries after graduation even while responders acknowledged that she had not recently been involved with clients. Recovery-community interference, relapse, and abandonment A. reports that Turnbridge-related stigma followed her into local recovery meetings. She says Turnbridge clients or staff would react to her presence, leave meetings, or treat her as dangerous, making it intimidating and difficult for her to participate in recovery spaces. She states that she lost 22 months of recovery. She accepts responsibility for her relapse but says the institutional stigma, social isolation, and ongoing blame cannot be omitted from the context. After relapsing, A. says she contacted Audrey Bell asking for treatment resources because they had once had a close relationship. She alleges that Bell left the message unanswered. Death of Isabella Nicolia A. reports that her best friend, Isabella Nicolia, died of an overdose after being removed from Turnbridge. A. states that she attended the memorial severely intoxicated and that friends cried because of her condition and her closeness to Isabella. She alleges that Tom Marzilli made disparaging or “smart” comments at the memorial that were severe enough for Audrey Bell to rebuke him. This is A.’s direct account of the memorial and grief context. It does not independently establish the circumstances of Isabella’s discharge, death, or any legal responsibility by Turnbridge. Employee-minor sexual misconduct and reported DCF involvement A. alleges that a former Turnbridge client later became a technician or support employee and, at age 26, became sexually involved with a 16-year-old female client. A. reports that: DCF became involved; residents were questioned individually; the minor later ran away with the employee; and no meaningful institutional action followed. This is one of the most serious allegations in her account. It requires DCF records, mandated reports, HR records, police or prosecutor records, staff schedules, client rosters, elopement records, family communications, and direct testimony from the people involved. Additional client-on-client sexual violence and staff response A. later added that a woman with whom she had an on-and-off sexual relationship told another male client she had been seeing that he became physically violent with her. A. further reported that the same male client had forced a former friend to have sex with him and another person. A. recognized one of the stories previously posted by the archive. When A. confronted or “went after” the male client over the reported violence, she says Turnbridge staff did nothing about his alleged conduct and instead reprimanded her. The distinction matters: the physical violence and forced-sex allegations were reported to A. by the affected women and require their direct accounts; A. personally reports her own response and the staff reprimand she received; and the archive screenshot preserves her contemporaneous description of these events. This addition raises questions about client-on-client sexual violence, physical abuse, staff knowledge, protection of women, retaliation against people who confronted alleged abuse, incident reporting, and whether the harmed clients were offered safety planning or outside reporting options. Source protection and evidentiary status A.’s account is direct former-client testimony supported in part by photographs, text-message screenshots, public licensing records, and a public poker record. Different portions have different evidentiary foundations. Public use must identify her only as A. Her full identity, employer, email address, social-media accounts, profile image, and unredacted communications must remain restricted. Her identity may be shared confidentially with investigators or regulators consistent with her authorization.

I.S.C. — Former Turnbridge Women’s Program Client (late 2022–2023)

Source and evidentiary note. I.S.C. is a former Turnbridge women’s-program client from the late-2022 through 2023 period. She supplied approximately fifty-seven photographed journal pages written during treatment, more than twenty case-manager communications, a photographed Contract for Continued Phase 3 Residence dated May 31, 2022, later complaint messages, and additional records. The contemporaneous timing of those materials makes this account unusually well documented. The allegations below remain attributed to I.S.C. unless a point is separately supported by a public record or another source. This page does not present unadjudicated allegations as proven findings.

Admissions, duration, program structure, and autonomy

I.S.C.’s journal records representations that phases would last roughly six to eight weeks, that graduation in roughly six months was possible, that she might leave in approximately three months, and that Phase 3 was optional. She later documented substantially longer phases, delayed phone access, and questions about timing being framed as “future tripping.”

She documented substantial unstructured time, inconsistent therapeutic content, limited life-skills work, difficulty reaching case management, and significant staff turnover. She experienced program progression, electronics access, weekend plans, work, family therapy, housing, and graduation as subject to broad staff discretion rather than transparent criteria.

Sexual-safety and psychiatric-acuity concern involving a roommate

A November 2022 journal entry describes a roommate recently coming from psychiatric care who allegedly behaved in a manic or psychotic manner. I.S.C. specifically alleges that the roommate repeatedly stood near women’s beds and asked women for massages, conduct I.S.C. experienced as sexually intrusive and unsafe. I.S.C. says staff minimized her concern instead of creating a clear protection or separation plan. The exact frequency, context, staff knowledge, clinical acuity, and institutional response remain matters for incident, clinical, room-assignment, and safety-plan records.

Device searches, privacy, behavioral control, and property

Journal entries and texts describe staff review of private Discord messages and Venmo activity, extended phone and laptop restrictions, unclear criteria for ending those restrictions, and a behavioral contract tying continued Phase 3 residence and privileges to broad requirements.

I.S.C. produced a photographed Contract for Continued Phase 3 Residence dated May 31, 2022. In contemporaneous texts she twice stated that she had not been given her own copy; the case manager did not dispute that and said it would be reviewed in session.

I.S.C. alleges that case manager Kelly McCormack took or failed to return her Nintendo Switch. She also alleges that electronics and property were used as leverage or subjected to prolonged restriction.

Medication access

I.S.C. documented being without Lamictal for more than three weeks and also without trazodone while reporting that she felt physically and emotionally unwell. In a contemporaneous text, after she said she felt horrible and unlike herself, the case manager replied, “It’s all about priorities,” and redirected the conversation to electronics use. The cause of the medication gaps remains a records question requiring medication-administration records, pharmacy and refill data, prescriber notes, nursing records, and adverse-effect review.

Room move, employment, and family therapy

Texts show I.S.C. being told she would switch rooms with Vivian that night and that the decision had already been made. She said she did not understand earlier comments as a formal room-move request and experienced the change as being sprung on her.

Texts also document repeated conflicts between imposed family-therapy times and her job. I.S.C. explicitly warned that attendance could cost her employment. The case manager said family therapy would not move again and framed nonattendance as refusal.

Graduation, discharge, and proposed forensic evaluation

Texts document a dispute over graduation, completion of aftercare, canceled meetings, and responsibility for delay. I.S.C. says she was denied the graduation she expected after her parents told the program not to let her graduate.

Another text asked how she would feel about a forensic psychologist traveling to Connecticut to evaluate her for two days. When I.S.C. asked who requested it, the case manager replied, “Guess.” The requesting party, purpose, consent process, funding, clinical rationale, and any resulting report remain unresolved.

Allegations concerning case manager Kelly McCormack

I.S.C. alleges a broader pattern of favoritism, screaming, humiliation, invasive searches, prolonged restrictions, arbitrary consequences, and gossip about clients while Kelly McCormack served as her case manager.

I.S.C. alleges that McCormack planted marijuana / weed among her belongings.
She alleges that McCormack planted, or later claimed to find, a condom in her bag or property.
She alleges that McCormack accused her of “sucking dick for” a gift card to a vegan restaurant.
She alleges that McCormack sent her back to Phase 1 for approximately eight weeks without a legitimate clinical reason.
She alleges that McCormack took or failed to return her Nintendo Switch.
Her later written complaints to McCormack specifically allege searches, drug-related accusations, screaming, prolonged restrictions, humiliation, favoritism, and gossip. Those messages predate the present archive investigation and provide a contemporaneous complaint trail, although they do not automatically prove each underlying allegation.

June 2023 communications with Turnbridge therapist Jeni

In June 2023, I.S.C. messaged therapist Jeni that her weekend plans had again been taken after she had warned McCormack that she would not make a UA and that a scheduled time slot did not work. I.S.C. wrote that McCormack had known about the scheduling problem for weeks, described the way McCormack spoke to her as unacceptable, and said that the situation could not continue. The following morning, she contacted Jeni because Kelly was not present and she needed medication packing before work.

In later messages, I.S.C. told Jeni that she appreciated Jeni reaching back out and that Jeni was the first person she had called. Jeni replied that I.S.C. deserved to feel supported. In a separate exchange concerning a gaming laptop, Jeni said she had tried to hide it so “Kelly and parents would forget.” These messages are relevant to contemporaneous notice, electronics and property control, scheduling conflict, and I.S.C.’s complaints about how she was treated.

Alleged circumstances of McCormack’s departure from Turnbridge

I.S.C. alleges that Turnbridge later requested that McCormack take a drug test and that McCormack refused. I.S.C. has described McCormack as then leaving, being fired, or otherwise being removed from the role. The exact employment classification remains unresolved and should be tested through Turnbridge HR and drug-testing records.

2024 “Concerned Citizens of Foxon” / police / DCF lead

I.S.C. supplied or discussed a screenshot from the Facebook group Concerned Citizens of Foxon showing two people whom the post alleged had been arrested in West Haven after driving around in a white box truck and stealing property. A visible comment asked whether they were the same people who stole a woman’s luggage.

I.S.C., who personally knew McCormack as her Turnbridge case manager, identified the woman pictured as Kelly McCormack. Turnbridge therapist Jeni separately identified the same woman as Kelly and confirmed that this was the page she had been discussing. Jeni stated that information had been provided privately to an alleged victim, that the woman contacted East Haven Police, and that there was reportedly an open investigation. Jeni also stated that a DCF report had been made in connection with concern for a child and that Kelly’s sister had become involved in the child’s care. I.S.C. separately described the alleged property victim as autistic. Those latter points remain attributed to the sources unless confirmed through police, DCF, victim, family, or court records.

Public criminal-record context concerning Kelly McCormack

Connecticut Judicial Branch case-detail screenshots identify Kelly Elizabeth McCormack, birth year 1984. The supplied official court records show a guilty plea and guilty finding for sixth-degree larceny arising from a March 8, 2017 offense; a guilty plea and guilty finding for sixth-degree larceny arising from a January 8, 2019 offense; guilty findings for second-degree breach of peace and second-degree threatening arising from March 16, 2019; and guilty findings for violation of probation on November 19, 2020. The 2017 larceny case resulted in an unconditional discharge. The January 2019 larceny case resulted in a 90-day jail sentence with execution suspended and one year of probation. The March 2019 breach-of-peace and threatening case resulted in suspended jail sentences and two years of probation.

A February 20, 2012 Connecticut news report separately identified a Kelly McCormack, then 27, who was charged with disorderly conduct after a dispute over personal property. The article reported that McCormack told police her boyfriend had a knife and a gun in his vehicle, but responding officers reported finding no weapons; the boyfriend alleged that McCormack punched him, while officers reportedly observed no visible injury. This is an arrest / charge report, not a conviction finding.

Additional search-result cards supplied to the archive reference sixth-degree larceny matters from 2011 and 2013 and a 2024 conspiracy-to-commit-sixth-degree-larceny matter. Those additional entries should remain docket leads unless and until the official Connecticut case-detail pages and dispositions are preserved.

The criminal records do not prove I.S.C.’s allegations about her treatment. Their institutional significance is that they raise a separate staff-vetting question: what background checks Turnbridge performed, what McCormack disclosed, what Turnbridge knew, and why she was given substantial authority over vulnerable clients, their belongings, privileges, schedules, and treatment progression.

What records should exist

I.S.C.’s complete Turnbridge file, including houses, phases, progress reviews, phase-downs, graduation decisions, discharge / aftercare records, family communications, and billing / utilization records.
All Kelly McCormack case-management notes, supervision records, complaint and grievance records, HR file, performance reviews, background checks, criminal-history disclosures, disciplinary records, and separation records.
All room and property searches, contraband logs, drug-test / UA records, condom or marijuana documentation, photographs, chain-of-custody records, incident reports, and staff witness statements.
Property inventories, electronics logs, Nintendo Switch records, gaming-laptop records, storage / return / reimbursement records, and family communications concerning electronics.
Medication-administration records, pharmacy and refill records, Lamictal and trazodone prescribing records, nursing communications, medication-error records, and adverse-effect documentation.
Behavioral-contract drafts, signature and distribution records, records showing whether I.S.C. received a copy, and the clinical rationale for each restriction.
Family-therapy scheduling records, employment schedule communications, job-impact notes, and records supporting or contradicting characterization of missed sessions as refusal.
The forensic-psychologist referral, requesting party, consent documentation, purpose, payment, travel, report, and communications with family or counsel.
Jeni’s relevant communications and supervision records, records concerning the gaming laptop, and any complaints or disclosures she received from I.S.C. about McCormack.
Any Turnbridge drug-test request directed to McCormack, refusal, specimen or testing records, HR communications, suspension, resignation, termination, exit interview, and any post-separation review of McCormack’s open cases.
East Haven and West Haven police reports, CAD / dispatch records, arrest and incident records, DCF intake or investigation records, and court records concerning the April 2024 property allegations.

Evidentiary classification

I.S.C. personally reports her own treatment experience and allegations concerning McCormack. Her journal pages and case-manager messages are contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous documentary support for many broader aspects of the account, but they do not automatically prove every alleged planted item, property loss, motive, or later employment event. Jeni’s messages are independent contemporaneous communications from a Turnbridge therapist, but statements concerning police, DCF, McCormack’s condition, or third parties still require records corroboration. Official Connecticut Judicial Branch case-detail pages are treated separately as public-record facts.

Archive classification: Direct former-client account with extensive contemporaneous documentation. Public identification is limited to I.S.C. unless she separately authorizes broader identification.

Old-Hedgehog-7363 — North Haven Adolescent Home and Prospect Street Women’s Program

Old-Hedgehog-7363 is a former Turnbridge client who responded to archive outreach and stated that she is preparing a Google document describing her experience from start to finish and in detail.

She says she attended:

the adolescent home in North Haven;
and the women’s adult program on Prospect Street.

She further reports that Turnbridge called police on her twice, placed her in an ambulance twice, and that she was hospitalized at Yale Hospital on both occasions.

She alleges that there was “zero documentation” of those hospitalizations.

At this stage, “zero documentation” should be understood as her statement that she did not see, receive, or later locate Turnbridge documentation of the events. It should not yet be converted into a definitive claim that no records exist. Two police responses, two ambulance transports, and two hospitalizations should ordinarily have created records across several systems, including Turnbridge, police, EMS, ambulance services, Yale, insurers, and family communications.

Her account raises questions about:

what precipitated each police response;
who called police;
what clinical assessment occurred before transport;
whether staff accompanied her or communicated with Yale;
whether she returned to Turnbridge afterward;
whether she was phased down, transferred, discharged, or placed under new restrictions;
whether her family or guardian was notified;
and whether the events were incorporated into her Turnbridge clinical file.

Because she attended both an adolescent setting and the women’s adult program, her eventual account may provide a cross-program view of practices at North Haven and Prospect Street.

This is currently a preliminary source entry rather than a completed testimony. The archive should not infer dates, staff names, diagnoses, precipitating events, or further details before she supplies the promised Google document.

Until she provides explicit publication instructions, she should remain identified only as Old-Hedgehog-7363 or under a more restrictive anonymous label. Her legal name, profile image, contact information, hospital details, and additional medical information should not be published without her permission.

J.P. — Client Funds, Alcohol Withdrawal, Family Pressure, and Corroboration

J.P., a former client who requested anonymity, alleges that a case manager took more than $1,000 in cash tips from him in October 2022 and that the money was never returned when he left.

He also reports arriving in March 2021 while experiencing severe alcohol-withdrawal symptoms. He says he repeatedly informed support staff about his symptoms and drinking history, was isolated alone while awaiting COVID testing, was not sent to detox or an emergency department, and was not checked by a higher-level employee until his third day.

J.P. says this was his first treatment admission and that he did not understand that he should have been in detox, but believes the treatment provider should have recognized the risk.

He further alleges that Turnbridge manipulated his parents to keep him in the program during two separate stays.

J.P. also says he remembers many incidents described elsewhere in the archive and may be able to provide independent corroboration. Each event must be reviewed individually rather than treating his statement as blanket proof.

M.J. — Elopement, Near-Fatal Intoxication, Withheld Money, Overdose, and Alleged Video Circulation

M.J. reports leaving Phase 1 with another client, obtaining alcohol, and becoming severely intoxicated in a winter field or wooded area near baseball fields.

Police and EMS reportedly located him. M.J. believes he would have died without the response.

He separately reports that staff told him to pack and said they did not care whether he left, but then withheld his money when he prepared to depart. He says he left or ran off again the following day.

M.J. also reports:

a fentanyl overdose during Phase 2;
hospital treatment;
Narcan administration;
and staff later showing people videos of him nodding off or overdosing.

He says meaningful separation from the environment did not occur until he personally requested detox.

The archive author independently remembers the initial departure, concern that M.J. was missing, M.J.’s repeat departure the next day, and contemporaneous discussion of the later overdose, but did not witness every element of M.J.’s account.

Public identification remains initials-only.

J.E. — Alleged Nonconsensual Intimate Recording and Distribution

J.E. reports that another client allegedly filmed him naked or masturbating and sent the intimate video to multiple people.

He says:

Turnbridge staff knew the details;
staff were complicit in how the incident was handled;
the alleged recorder was downgraded to Phase 1 when police probably should have been involved;
he was not meaningfully consulted;
he was not meaningfully involved in decisions about the response;
and internal documentation should exist.

The archive author independently remembers seeing the video circulating in early 2022.

This account therefore combines direct testimony from the person allegedly recorded with an independent firsthand memory that the video circulated.

The account raises questions about:

staff knowledge;
police and mandated-reporting decisions;
recipient identification;
device handling;
deletion or preservation of copies;
victim consultation;
safety planning;
and why a phase reduction was used rather than an outside report.

Public use remains anonymous.

Anonymous Current-Client Witness — R.’s Attempt to Leave in March 2026

A current-client witness describes an adult Phase 1 client identified as R., who reportedly wanted to leave 90 Ford Street after approximately 28 days and transfer to another sober house closer to his family.

The witness alleges that Drew Behr attempted to prevent R. from leaving by:

interfering with family communications;
cutting off calls while relocation plans were being discussed;
blocking relevant telephone numbers;
and trying to turn R.’s family against him.

According to the witness, R. used the witness’s Bark Phone to call his girlfriend and arrange a bus ticket. The witness personally permitted the call and overheard the girlfriend become extremely angry about Drew’s alleged interference.

After the call, a ticket was purchased and R. left.

The following morning, the witness says Drew referred to R. as “toxic” during morning meeting and complained about having to “police” people.

The witness authorized use of his own observations, but R. must remain anonymous. Use that could identify or materially involve R. should await R.’s consent or independent corroboration.

Anonymous Former-Client Witness — Severe Medication Reaction Involving N.B.

An anonymous former-client witness reports personally observing N.B.:

shaking continuously;
drooling;
losing substantial motor control;
struggling to open food;
appearing unable to chew a granola bar;
later passing out;
and continuing to drool while unconscious or heavily sedated.

The witness says they opened N.B.’s food, substituted yogurt when he could not chew, and later saw him passed out on a couch in the clinical building.

The witness recalls staff saying N.B. would be taken to a hospital but alleges that transport did not occur that day and that meaningful evaluation appeared delayed until the next day or later.

This account should be tested through medication-administration records, prescriber orders, nursing notes, vital signs, incident reports, transportation records, hospital records, staff schedules, and family communications.

W.S. — Reported Suicide Attempt, Return, Phase-Down, and Continued Placement

W.S. directly reported that he attempted suicide while living in Phase 3 and was removed from the Turnbridge environment for approximately five days.

The archive author independently remembers W.S.’s approximate five-day absence and his later placement at 520 Whitney after being phased down from Phase 3 to Phase 2.

W.S. reportedly said that Turnbridge would not allow him to leave or remain outside the program and that he stayed for approximately another year despite his objections.

The suicide attempt and internal decision-making were not personally witnessed by the archive author and require corroboration through crisis records, hospital or emergency records, safety plans, family communications, house rosters, phase-change documentation, discharge requests, and billing records.

Anonymous Former Support Staff Member — Former Client, Young-Adult Program, and Several Years of Employment

An anonymous former Turnbridge client who later worked in support staff for several years contacted the archive author directly. The source and the archive author had previously lived together during portions of Phases 1, 2, and 3. Public versions must not identify the source by name, username, profile image, contact information, exact job title, or other details that could reveal his identity. Source background and institutional access The source reports that he worked at Turnbridge for several years after his own time as a client and witnessed what he described as “crazy shit.” He said he became friends with Carter, a case manager associated with 520 Whitney Avenue, and that Carter told him extensive information about what occurred inside the program. The source also said the conditions were so poor that he had considered starting his own program simply because of how horrible he believed Turnbridge had become. Clients allegedly retained despite active psychosis and need for a higher level of care The source reports a broader problem involving clients who needed a higher level of care, such as hospitalization, but were allegedly kept at Turnbridge for months longer than they should have been. He specifically states that he knew of at least two clients who were in active and very intense psychosis and remained at Turnbridge for months before the program finally took meaningful action. According to the source, the situations escalated until the clients were hospitalized or called police themselves. He further states that both clients were clearly dangerous to themselves and others, yet nothing meaningful happened for months. These allegations raise questions about how Turnbridge assessed psychiatric acuity and eligibility for continued placement; whether clients experiencing active psychosis were clinically appropriate for the housing environment; what psychiatric, nursing, emergency, hospital, police, and significant-event records exist; whether families and insurers were informed of the severity of the clients’ conditions; whether continued retention was based on clinical judgment, operational convenience, or financial considerations; and whether staff had the training, staffing, and authority necessary to manage clients who presented a serious danger to themselves or others. Client allegedly threatening murder and repeatedly possessing knives The source describes one specific client who lived in his house and allegedly threatened to murder other clients. He reports that the client was repeatedly caught with knives but was nevertheless allowed to remain in the residence. The source states that he personally found three large knives in the client’s room within approximately two weeks. This portion of the account includes direct firsthand testimony concerning the discovery of the knives. The alleged murder threats, repeated prior knife discoveries, decisions permitting the client to remain, and the full institutional response require corroboration through the source’s complete account, the client’s file, house rosters, room-search and contraband logs, incident reports, staff shift notes, clinical and psychiatric assessments, safety plans, police or emergency records, family communications, staff schedules, supervision records, and testimony from other residents and employees who knew of the threats or knives. Direct corroboration of Drew Behr replaying the M.J. fire-extinguisher CCTV footage The source directly confirms that Drew Behr replayed or showed the M.J. fire-extinguisher incident video or CCTV footage to clients. He states that he was personally one of the clients to whom Drew showed the footage. This independently corroborates the archive author’s firsthand account that Drew replayed the serious M.J. / C.S. fire-extinguisher incident for clients. The source’s statement is not merely a rumor or later retelling; he identifies himself as a direct viewer of the footage. Retrospective account of the archive author’s treatment The source states that when he first began thinking back on the relevant period, what he initially remembered was the archive author “getting in trouble.” After reflecting more carefully, however, he says he remembered how badly case managers and support staff treated the archive author every day. He further states that L.M. was one of the worst human beings he had ever met. He acknowledges remembering that he sometimes laughed with the archive author at night, but also says he appreciated the archive author for making his own time at Turnbridge less hellish. This is significant because the source does not portray the archive author as a perfect or uncomplicated client. Instead, he describes a retrospective change in understanding: an initial memory organized around the client being “in trouble,” followed by recognition of repeated mistreatment by staff and the broader environment. Case manager Carter’s alleged statements about direct-care staff and parents The source reports that case manager Carter said: “Not a single direct care member gives a single fuck about the clients.” This is a statement attributed to Carter through the anonymous former support staff source. The archive author did not hear Carter make the statement directly. It should therefore be treated as relayed testimony. The source also reports that Carter told him Tom Marzilli used to say: “The parents are the real clients.” The complete attribution chain is that Tom Marzilli allegedly made the statement, Carter allegedly repeated it to the source, and the source later relayed it to the archive author. The statement should not be represented as something the source personally heard Marzilli say. Former support-staff manager allegedly attempting to have sex with a client The source reports that a former support-staff manager was fired after allegedly trying to have sex with a client, including taking the client out to dinner. The source did not explain in the available messages whether he personally witnessed the conduct, saw employment or investigation records, heard an admission, or learned it through Carter or another employee. This allegation must therefore remain attributed to the source as a workplace or relayed allegation unless and until the basis of knowledge is clarified. Staff allegedly permitted to work while high The source states that staff members were allowed to work while high. The available messages do not yet establish whether he personally observed staff impairment, personally observed supervisors knowingly permit impaired employees to remain on shift, saw drug-test or HR records, heard admissions from staff or managers, or learned the information through workplace discussion. Staff allegedly giving marijuana to clients The source also states that he knows of staff members who gave marijuana to clients. The available messages do not identify the employees, clients, dates, residences, or whether the source personally witnessed the transfers. Until those details are clarified, this remains an attributed allegation rather than an established event. Reaction to women’s-program grooming and sexual-boundary accounts After the archive author described accounts from women who alleged grooming and sexual-boundary misconduct by staff, including E.A.’s account of receiving explicit photographs from a male staff member while she was 16, the source said he could not imagine what the women had gone through and wished he could say the information was surprising. This reaction is not independent proof of E.A.’s allegation or any other women’s-program account. Memories of deceased former clients and impact of the program environment The source also shared memories of former clients who later died. He said he thinks about Neo constantly. He described Vic as “a legend” and recalled cutting Vic’s hair at Grand for approximately two hours. He said Vic was one of the best people he had ever met. The source further reported that he had read an email Vic’s mother sent to Vic’s care team. According to the source’s retelling of that email, Vic was traveling to another state for a new job, stopped at a gas station while severely intoxicated, was reported by the clerk as he drove away, led police on a short chase, and died by suicide from a gunshot. This is relayed information from the source’s recollection of an email attributed to Vic’s mother and should not be treated as independently verified without the original email, family authorization, and official records. The archive author told the source that he still possesses a pair of Vic’s shorts and has not been able to discard them. The source encouraged him to keep them. Their exchange reflects continuing grief among former clients and the way deaths remain embedded in the memories, belongings, and relationships formed inside the treatment environment. Evidentiary distinctions The source personally reports working in Turnbridge support staff for several years after being a client; personally finding three large knives in one client’s room within approximately two weeks; personally being one of the clients shown the M.J. fire-extinguisher CCTV footage by Drew Behr; personally remembering how the archive author was treated by case managers, support staff, and L.M.; and his own memories and grief concerning Neo and Vic. The source reports through workplace knowledge or direct statements from others that at least two clients in active psychosis were retained for months; that the specific knife-possessing client threatened to murder other clients and was repeatedly allowed to remain; that Carter said direct-care employees did not care about clients; that Carter told him Tom Marzilli said “the parents are the real clients”; that a former support-staff manager was fired after attempting to have sex with a client and taking him to dinner; that staff were allowed to work high; that staff gave marijuana to clients; and the circumstances of Vic’s death as allegedly described in an email from Vic’s mother. The archive must not collapse these different evidence types into one proven institutional conclusion. Source protection and publication posture The original messages, screenshots, timestamps, and any future clarifications should be preserved in a restricted source archive. Public versions should identify the source only as an anonymous former support staff member and former client. They should not include his name, social-media handle, profile image, telephone number, exact current employment status, specific house assignments that could reveal his identity, or other identifying metadata. This is direct and relayed source testimony, not an adjudicated finding. The account should be used as a records-request and witness-interview roadmap.

smackinbucketsss — Killingworth Adolescent Program, 2025

A former Turnbridge adolescent-program client using the Reddit username smackinbucketsss reports attending the Killingworth residence during 2025.

The source states that no staff member physically assaulted or improperly restrained him. He distinguishes that from physical fights involving other clients and describes the residence as containing many highly unpredictable adolescents.

He reports that:

fights occurred among residents;
many incidents were described by clients as “riots” or similar large-scale disturbances;
residents in his group possessed nicotine products;
residents also possessed THC cartridges;
and the overall rehabilitation experience now feels like a “fever dream.”

The source’s account is significant because it comes from the same site and year covered by Turnbridge’s 2025 adolescent residential reporting. Turnbridge’s own aggregate data listed 75 significant-event reports at Killingworth, including numerous physical-aggression incidents and medication-error events. The source’s description does not independently verify every incident in that report, but it provides direct former-client context for what recurring disorder allegedly felt like inside the residence.

The account raises questions about:

the frequency and scale of group disturbances;
whether incidents described informally as “riots” were documented as significant events;
staffing levels and supervision during fights;
how contraband nicotine and THC cartridges entered and circulated within the residence;
searches, drug testing, confiscation, and family notification;
separation of unpredictable or violent residents;
and whether the program admitted a level of behavioral instability it could not safely manage.

Other Direct and Relayed Accounts Preserved in the Archive

The archive also preserves several additional accounts whose full publication posture varies.

J. and H. — Outside Help and Attempts to Leave

Former clients J. and H. separately described trying to obtain help leaving through girlfriends.

Both alleged that Turnbridge contacted or exerted pressure through a girlfriend’s father, after which the girlfriend could no longer assist.

These remain relayed allegations requiring direct confirmation from the clients, girlfriends, parents, telephone records, and discharge documentation.

C.R. — Sexualized Staff Self-Disclosure

C.R. reported that case manager Steve Tobey discussed his own sex addiction, infidelity, and marital collapse in a client group, identified C.R. as “another sex addict,” and pressured him to stop masturbating.

The archive author did not witness these interactions.

Former Adolescent Client J. — Matt Fields

A former adolescent client reported that therapist Matt Fields joked during a walk that he could sell the client to a homeless man and use the proceeds to buy crack.

The source says Fields then became alarmed and pleaded with him not to tell anyone.

Liam-Related Allegations

A former client reported by phone that employee Liam was allegedly fired after attempting to meet with an underage former adolescent client.

A separate relayed allegation states that Liam supplied THC-pen hits to two clients who were being kept at a separate property following relapse.

Neither allegation is established. Both require direct witnesses, HR records, mandated-reporting records, schedules, drug-testing records, and the former adolescent client’s account.

Younger Phase 1 Client

A younger client reportedly expressed fear after a heavier client allegedly restrained and beat him, was briefly removed from the property, and then returned to shared housing.

The identities have not yet been reconstructed.

Douglas Roberto Intruder Account

Multiple former clients reportedly described a masked intruder entering an unsecured Phase 3 house.

According to the repeated account, Douglas Roberto:

grabbed a knife;
brought a client with him to search the house;
instructed the client not to tell anyone;
and was fired shortly afterward.

The archive author did not witness the incident, and the client allegedly brought into the search has not yet been interviewed.

Adolescent Client Assault

K.G. reportedly recounted that he and W.H. beat and kicked an adolescent client while the client was on the ground.

This is a serious relayed allegation requiring direct testimony, house rosters, incident reports, medical documentation, staffing records, and the harmed client’s account.

Staff-Relayed Transgender-Client Concern

An unidentified staff member reportedly said that a transgender woman placed in the men’s young-adult program around 2021 had been “emotionally terrorized.”

This account predates and is separate from Annie’s testimony.

It requires identification of the client and staff source, placement records, policies, safety plans, clinical notes, and incident documentation.

Killingworth Parent or Loved-One Lead

A public Reddit commenter identifying herself as a parent or loved one alleged:

an attempted hanging involving a person believed to be approximately 14;
a separate female-to-female sexual assault between residents in May 2026;
vaping by staff;
and possession of a vape by a resident.

A separate dispatch-audio lead concerns an emergency response near Parker Hill Road Extension for a reported attempted hanging by a 14-year-old girl.

It remains unresolved whether the two sources concern the same event.

Preliminary Women’s-Program Sources

Two additional people connected to the early women’s program contacted the archive by email.

One early graduate said allegations involving coercion, abuse, and harassment were consistent with her own experience and offered to speak.

Another source said she had been both:

an early women’s-program client;
and later a Phase 3 case manager.

Because full interviews had not yet occurred, these are preserved as high-priority source leads rather than completed public testimony.

Source and Consent Notice

Some people have contacted the archive but have not yet completed their accounts or authorized public use. Their names and preliminary statements will not appear here merely because contact occurred.

Each source controls:

whether their account is public or private;
whether they are named, identified by initials, identified by a username, or anonymous;
whether their information may be shared with journalists, attorneys, regulators, or other survivors;
and whether screenshots, messages, records, photographs, or medical information may be published.

The archive preserves original evidence privately while presenting only the version authorized for public use.

Evidentiary Notice

These are allegations, recollections, and witness accounts—not final legal or regulatory findings.

Different accounts have different evidentiary foundations. Some events were personally experienced. Some were personally witnessed. Others were learned contemporaneously or relayed by participants and peers.