BULLOCH COUNTY – Six men rallied against one woman and then called her the “bully.” She was called a “stalker” while undergoing intense targeting and coercion that in and of itself exhibited behavior indicative of stalking. Here’s how six men turned a woman’s request for clarity and accountability into a criminal narrative.
Records from the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office show that on August 10, 2025, after being confronted about an item he picked up and perhaps….pocketed at woman’s home….Brooklet resident, Parker D. Graham, called dispatch to report a woman, B.V., for “harassment.” The body-worn camera footage shows Graham telling Bulloch County Deputy Jonathan Hall that he’d met a woman at the beginning of June and after a date “in the beginning of July,” she began harassing him after he “rejected her.” The incident occurred on July 21, 2025, however, sources speculate that Graham had extraneous connections to protect and shifted the timeline to garner a police record favorable to him. He told Deputy Hall that B.V. messaged him stating she was on her way to Bulloch County to file a small claim for a memorial ring but would give him the opportunity to pay for the ring by the next morning as she had been reaching out several times about its whereabouts with no response. According to the messages, which our team reviewed prior to our interview with her, B.V. told Graham that the ring was a memorial ring containing the remains of a deceased loved one. This is in writing.
Interestingly, despite this characterization being provided to him in writing, Deputy Hall’s report states that the ring was a $55 engagement ring. It appears that in further derogation of his duties to report truthfully, Hall writes that it was B.V. who characterized the ring as such. This is despite never having spoken to her in crafting the August 10, 2025, report. There is no body-worn camera footage of Hall contacting B.V. and no indication that she provided any statement in connection with Hall’s report. In fact, it does not appear that, prior to placing her name on the report, Hall ever verified the messages (which Graham claimed were from texting applications) were actually sent by B.V. at all. The August 10, 2025, report was closed and noted “for documentation only.”
A viral TikTok video posted by B.V. recounts the situation in detail. According to evidence shown in that ten-minute long video, despite claiming “fear for his safety,” on August 11 at approximately 10:51 p.m., Graham, claiming to be harassed by B.V., initiated contact with her for reasons we can only speculate about. Graham first reached out to B.V. via third-party application and when he did not receive a response, reached out via iMessage, attempting to pay for the ring while arguing that it was B.V. who had misplaced her own memorial item. This statement was also revealed as untruthful according to body-worn camera footage. B.V. refused the money and stated if he thought the matter was silly, he could “tell that to the judge,” as she sought court intervention believing his actions were intentional.
According to her TikTok and the messages shown, fifteen minutes after B.V. refused, she received a call from Corporal Reed. Corporal Reed’s call is odd for several reasons. Though still being investigated, there is a complaint before POST alleging that Corporal Jordan Reed accessed both parties’ database records prior to there being a legitimate lawful purpose. It appears the call was made merely to get B.V.’s driver’s license information to justify the search as he took no investigative measures and refused to allow her to report, what she considered, Graham’s misuse of law enforcement. The call was terminated as she attempted to speak leaving a question. What purpose did the call serve?
More interestingly, the report provides that Reed spoke with both parties, makes no mention that the call was abruptly terminated, and timeline wise, the justification for the call does not appear on the body-worn camera footage until after Reed calls B.V. Therefore, she could not have given commentary on the he claims prompted the call. Despite Graham stating on body-worn camera that (1) he had reached out to B.V. at least two times the previous night, and (2) had engaged in back-and-forth argument and discussion regarding the dispute that same night, Corporal Jordan Reed wrote, in the official report, that it was B.V. who had “reached out via TextFree apps requesting $200” and “pivoted to criminal.”
No preserved third-party messages reflecting such a demand appear in the investigative record.
The sequence resembles investigative “bootstrapping” — using an earlier documentation-only report to justify escalation. The August 10 entry, closed “for documentation,” becomes foundation. The August 11 messages become justification. As a marine officer, it is likely Graham knew this. The August 12 report become.
There is further evidence of Reed’s attempts to cover up his alleged illegal search. On body-worn camera footage, Reed told Graham that B.V. knew about his prior arrest and therefore had used her law license to look up his arrest record and that doing so was legally improper. There is no discussion regarding any of this on the body-worn camera footage. Additionally, the jump is a large one to make as, as B.V. pointed out in her video, Reed does not ask Graham if he told B.V. about the arrest and the arrest itself is searchable online. Public records show Graham’s 2013 arrest was reported by the Statesboro Herald (https://www.statesboroherald.com/local/police-report/police-report-5-8-13-a-laptop-computer-electric-razor-and-book-bag-were-reported-stolen/). A POST review filing requests examination of Reed’s phone logs and GCIC access logs to determine whether database access occurred before lawful basis existed.
Most concerning is that while structuring the report to discredit her, body camera footage shows Graham admitting he handled and moved the subject memorial ring, including placing it in his pocket.
More concerning, despite drafting the report to make her appear overwhelmingly criminal, the officers state there was no probable cause to arrest her.
Despite this, Reed is heard encouraging Graham to swear out a warrant. Likely because if the state arrests her knowing they failed to give her due process, she has a valid Fourth Amendment claim, but if they get a private citizen to do it, they get to craft a horrendous narrative and tee Graham up to weaponize it.
More concerning is that this entire encounter occurred after Graham’s simultaneous relationships with B.V. and another unnamed woman were disclosed online and seen by a former partner, Sarah Brennan, via an Are We Dating the Same Guy/Savannah, GA private Facebook group. In that group, B.V. explained what Graham had done and warned other women. Several other women, including Brennan, chimed in, offering their personal experiences with Graham, including one woman who stated that the two had dated during his divorce and that he displayed “narcissistic” behavior. According to Brennan, Graham, while seeing the other women, had been reaching out to her “every night,” begging her back and promising he’d “changed.” The same “frightening” behavior he’d accused B.V. of. While this remains unproven at this time, there is someone belief among participants that Graham may have posted about himself on August 14, 2025, in order to make it appear as though B.V. was posting about him following police involvement.
What happened next solidifies the malicious intent behind these actions. Despite admitting on body camera footage to handling the subject ring, afterward, Graham (specifically choosing to go to attorneys in B.V.’s field) denied any knowledge of the ring whatsoever despite his recorded admission. In an act of behavior consistent with sexual exploitation, he gave B.V.’s colleagues intimate voicemails of her and accused of her making advances toward him prompting his departure from her apartment. Below are messages taken from B.V.’s TikTok. These messages show Graham pushing for intimacy despite B.V.’s request to “wait.”
The attorneys threatened defamation claims and professional harm, characterizing her allegations as retaliation for rejected advances. The letter conveniently dies not mention the August 12, 2025, text messages as the messages, as characterized, do not exist. Had there been such extortionate messages, it is confusing that Graham would not have produced them to his attorneys. Public filings include messages from Graham pressing for intimacy after having a “dream” about her. Her account has garnered more than 200,000 views and over 12,000 engagements on TikTok. She has publicly disclosed diagnoses of PTSD and agoraphobia and states she requested her employer remove her photo after workplace-targeted contact. A POST review is pending concerning GCIC access, phone records, body-worn camera footage, and the accuracy of the report.
In high-conflict relationship disputes, the most dangerous moment often isn’t the breakup—it’s the story that gets told afterward. When one party succeeds in framing the other as “unstable,” “obsessive,” or “retaliatory,” that narrative can spread faster than the facts, especially when it’s echoed by authority figures or written into official paperwork. This is not a niche dynamic. National CDC data show that nearly half of U.S. women (47.3%) report experiencing intimate partner sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking in their lifetime. And stalking frequently overlaps with relationship conflict and control: the U.S. Department of Justice has reported that victims of stalking—especially those stalked through both traditional and technology-based methods—are more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner (35%) than victims of only traditional stalking.
Researchers use the term DARVO to describe a common response pattern in abuse allegations: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. In plain terms, it looks like this:
- Deny the conduct (“That never happened.”)
- Attack the accuser (“They’re unstable, vindictive, obsessive.”)
- Reverse roles (“Actually I’m the one afraid / being harassed.”)
DARVO matters because it can be persuasive to outsiders. Research shows DARVO-style responses can measurably shape how third parties perceive credibility and blame. In
This is where details like timing, tone, and “character” framing become strategic. Shifting the story from “a specific incident” to “a long pattern of harassment” can function as narrative leverage: it suggests obsession rather than conflict, pathology rather than dispute.
“Flying Monkeys” and Proxy Smear Campaigns
In popular abuse-literature, “flying monkeys” refers to third parties recruited—knowingly or unknowingly—to enforce a narrative: repeating claims, pressuring silence, isolating the target, or giving the impression that “everyone agrees” about who the problem is.
The more “official” the source sounds, the more the narrative hardens. Rumors and reputation-attacks aren’t side-effects; they’re often the mechanism. The Office for Victims of Crime notes that among stalking victims, spreading rumors is a commonly reported behavior (36%). This matters because rumor-spreading doesn’t require physical proximity—only a receptive audience and a believable story.
Here’s what Graham left out. Based on a Youtube video containing messages allegedly between Graham and B.V., Graham was intense. In the first week of meeting B.V. he was sending messages such as “Savannah would be brighter with you in it.” On the date of the incident, Graham sat outside B.V.’s apartment for hours without disclosing his presence. B.V. also shared messages wherein, despite pretending not to know her name or profession, he admitted to using her number to look her up on LinkedIn prior to their first call. Interesting, considering it appears that he consistently targeted her profession.
When these third parties include employers, attorneys, friends, or institutions, the pressure can become coercive: “Drop it, or you’ll lose your job / your reputation / your standing.”
Why “Narcissistic Abuse” Gets Mentioned So Often—And What’s Actually Supported
Clinically, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is estimated by the American Psychiatric Association to affect about 1%–2% of the U.S. population. But many people use “narcissistic abuse” more loosely to describe a pattern of traits—grandiosity, entitlement, lack of empathy, manipulation, image management—whether or not a diagnosable disorder is present.
The relevant point for readers isn’t diagnosis; it’s tactics:
- Image-first storytelling (who looks credible, not what’s true)
- Character assassination (making the target’s personality the “evidence”)
- Institutional triangulation (getting authorities to repeat or memorialize the narrative)
- Retaliatory escalation after boundaries (especially when someone insists on court/legal channels)
The Core Warning
When institutions rely on a single party’s framing—especially early, before verification—paper can become power. A narrative written into official records can:
- outlive body camera footage in real-world influence,
- shape how employers and communities respond,
- and pressure the targeted person into silence through fear of reputational collapse.
That’s why the most important question in cases like these is not “Who told the better story?”
It’s: Who controlled the record—and who was denied a voice in it?