New Schock allegations: Federal complaint offers more detail in charges against former Venable teacher

A federal judge has released former Venable teacher Corey Schock released. A federal judge has released former Venable teacher Corey Schock released.

Days before state prosecutors filed a motion to drop three felony child porn charges against former Venable Elementary School teacher Corey R. Schock, federal agents filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia charging Schock with one count of online coercion and solicitation of a minor. An affidavit filed in federal court supporting the complaint offers lurid and disturbing details of the allegations against him that led to his February 10 arrest.

According to the March 7 affidavit, Schock’s online relationship with the 15-year-old Northern Virginia girl referred to in legal documents as Juvenile 1 began on November 10, 2013, as the two communicated using a messaging app known as KIK.

A man using the profile name “Nick Nick” and the username “spiderx99” presented himself as “a 40-year-old schoolteacher residing approximately two hours from the home of Juvenile 1,” according to the 11-page document.

The affidavit asserts that “Nick Nick” is Schock, citing documents that show the KIK account was accessed by an IP address matching an account leased by Schock at an address in Charlottesville. Furthermore, the affidavit alleges that items and rooms in his home and at Venable School match those seen in the pornographic images sent by “Nick Nick” to Juvenile 1.

According to the affidavit, the KIK exchanges made clear that the two had already been communicating elsewhere online when they moved their messaging to KIK, and over the course of the next month—continuing until “a few minutes” before a Fairfax police detective arrived at the girl’s Woodbridge home on December 10—”Nick Nick” and the teen engaged in increasingly graphic exchanges.

“Mmmm show me that perfect body,” “Nick Nick” messaged the teen at 9:38am on Thursday, November 14. Twenty-four minutes later, at 10:02am, the teen responded by sending a pornographic photograph of herself.

“Oh holy fuck yes…” “Nick Nick” responded, suggesting he was in school when he received the message. “Im going to be on Bethesda md area this weekend….”

According to the affidavit, “Nick Nick” sent photos of his own genitals to the teen, and made several references to his excitement over the sexual exchanges occurring while he was at school.

Other messages sent by the teen seem to suggest sexual assertiveness on her part, which included the use of sexual toys and other photos of herself engaged in sexual acts with other men .

“Nick Nick” told Juvenile 1 that he was 40. When she stated that he was “like 25 years older,” “Nick Nick” allegedly responded, “That’s hot.”

In subsequent communications, “Nick Nick” told Juvenile 1 that she appeared to be 13-14 years old and he asked her to send images of herself at age 13.

While a motion filed by the Assistant Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Joe Platania in Charlottesville Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court states that no evidence suggests Schock had inappropriate contact with local juveniles, the federal affidavit asserts he likely engaged in inappropriate behavior while at Venable.

“The wall tile and floor tile in the men’s restroom closest to Schock’s classroom matched the tiles visible in the image of Schock’s erect penis, which had been sent to Juvenile 1,” the affidavit reads.

“The desk and surrounding area inside Schock’s classroom were compared to the background of the image of Schock’s [clothed] groin,” which had been sent to Juvenile 1. According to the affidavit, Schock denied that he had taken the picture while students were present in the classroom.

While the affidavit does not detail Schock’s interactions with other juveniles, it alleges that since September 27, 2011, he “routinely engaged underage females in sexually explicit online chats and would complement them on their physical appearance.” The underage teens represented themselves as between 14 and 16, the affidavit asserts, and while Schock would sometimes “feign surprise” over their age and apologize, he continued with the communications and, in each case, represented himself as younger than his actual age.

During a February bond hearing, a judge asked that Child Protective Services help determine whether Schock could safely be released on bond. He had been denied bond pending a psychosexual evaluation. Schock is father to two daughters, ages 11 and 14, according to testimony from a mid-February bond hearing in Juvenile and Domestic Court.

On December 3, one week before a detective arrived at the home of Juvenile 1, “Nick Nick” sent Juvenile 1 a message describing using his “stepdaughter’s panties” for a sexual act.

According to the affidavit, during an interview with law enforcement following his arrest, Schock denied he was aware he’d been communicating with a minor. He allegedly told investigators, “I didn’t do it. I didn’t know it was real. I didn’t know it was real.”

Schock has been held without bond at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail since his arrest. His attorney, Lloyd Snook, has not returned C-VILLE’s call. If convicted on the federal charge, he faces a sentence of 10 years to life in prison.

A hearing on the motion to drop state charges was scheduled for Wednesday, March 12, in Charlottesville Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

Read the full affidavit here.

Schock Affidavit

Posted In:     News


Previous Post

Venue change: State seeks to drop child porn charges against Venable teacher, hand case to feds

Next Post

A new way to operate: A surgery practice bets on a price transparency model

Our comments system is designed to foster a lively debate of ideas, offer a forum for the exchange of ad hoc information, and solicit honest, respectful feedback about the work we do. We’re glad you’re participating. Here are a few simple rules to follow, which should be relatively straightforward.

1) Don’t call people names or accuse them of things you cannot support.
2) Don’t direct foul language, racial slurs, or offensive terms at other commenters or our staff.
3) Don’t use the discussion on our site for commercial (or shameless personal) promotion.

We reserve the right to remove posts and ban commenters who violate any of the rules listed above, or the spirit of the discussion. We’re trying to create a safe space for a wide range of people to express themselves, and we believe that goal can only be achieved through thoughtful, sensitive editorial control.

If you have questions or comments about our policies or about a specific post, please send an e-mail to

Leave a Reply

Notify of