LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the assailant was wandering the school unaccounted for for several hours after the incident is upsetting. Did it not occur to anyone to find him? Did they even try?

No. They should have locked down the building until they located him. They know this.

[Anonymous]

After reading more details in the grand jury report it is clear this boy is very disturbed and a sociopath. I worry he will assault more girls again down the road or escalate by murdering someone. He is a sick predator and should be locked away for life.

[Anonymous]

So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the assailant was wandering the school unaccounted for for several hours after the incident is upsetting. Did it not occur to anyone to find him? Did they even try?

I think the principal did not believe the girl's story. In his email he says the girl made similar allegations at a previous school. Many on this forum were defending the boy on charges of rape given the facts- unlike the second case, this girl voluntarily went into the bathroom to meet this boy. The judge ruled rape, but many people on here who had a political motive wanted to defend it.
What I don't understand is why this girl was at the school. Apparently they live in Leesburg, and it appears the previous school was Tuscorara. This is not particularly close to Broad Run or Stone Bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As stated in the other thread, Rosniak’s reporting, for a publication that lacks credibility as a news organization, is contemptible.

I’m sorry, what? Do you also find the grand jury process “contemptible”?

This person is just upset that the perp was caught and the school board/school administration was held responsible. Blame the messenger is a great game when you can’t argue the facts.

That's absurd. I'm upset that Rosniak turns his focus on irrelevant details for angertainment purposes and omits key findings of the grand jury that implicate the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office.

The entire politicization of this by people outside our community for the nefarious purposes of attacking the LGTBQ community was egged on by the tone and tenor of this type of coverage. That's what makes it contemptible.

Firstly it’s Rosiak.

Secondly, this was suppressed due to a bathroom bill on the school board docket

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the assailant was wandering the school unaccounted for for several hours after the incident is upsetting. Did it not occur to anyone to find him? Did they even try?

I think the principal did not believe the girl's story. In his email he says the girl made similar allegations at a previous school. Many on this forum were defending the boy on charges of rape given the facts- unlike the second case, this girl voluntarily went into the bathroom to meet this boy. The judge ruled rape, but many people on here who had a political motive wanted to defend it.
What I don't understand is why this girl was at the school. Apparently they live in Leesburg, and it appears the previous school was Tuscorara. This is not particularly close to Broad Run or Stone Bridge.

If the school has room and the parents are willing to drive the kid, a kid can go to the school. Leesburg schools aren’t as good as Ashburn’s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

I wonder if this was not the case would the situation have been handled differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

I wonder if this was not the case would the situation have been handled differently?

Ya think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

I wonder if this was not the case would the situation have been handled differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

Which has nothing to do with anything in this case. How is it relevant? His victim agreed to meet him in the bathroom. Because they had had a consensual sexual relationship previously. It’s not like he wore a skirt to sneak into a girls bathroom and lay in wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me see if I got this straight.

The sheriff's office stepped in to arrest the angry father of the anally-assaulted girl (she needed corrective surgery following the assault) on the day of the assault, when the father went to the school to confront the principal over what happened to his daughter. LCPS asked the sheriff's office to arrest the father because he was upset (probably he was yelling at the knuckleheads). While the school officials and the sheriff's office were preoccupied with arresting the dad, the sociopath was loose on campus. Neither LCPS nor the sheriff's office followed up with the little sociopath for the remainder of that school year. The next year the sociopath was moved to a different school. He proceeded to abduct a sweet, innocent girl and violently raped her in an empty classroom. Even then, the sheriff's office and LCPS officials tried to pretend nothing had happened. They were mad at the dad for making a fuss at a school board meeting over the anal rape of his daughter.

Do I have it straight?

Not really. You do have a proclivity for using inflammatory and sensational language to describe a situation that is plenty dramatic without your gratuitous adjectives and other modifiers, though. But since you are all up in arms about the school administration, perhaps read the sections of the report more closely the sections discussing the colossal failures by the sheriff’s office. That’s just as scandalous as the LCPS response and in fact set the stage for the LCPS bungling.

Can you clarify what parts the pp got wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

Which has nothing to do with anything in this case. How is it relevant? His victim agreed to meet him in the bathroom. Because they had had a consensual sexual relationship previously. It’s not like he wore a skirt to sneak into a girls bathroom and lay in wait.

The teacher’s aide who expressed concern about his behavior was accused of being transphobic. Perhaps that impacted the teacher who found the boy in the bathroom with the girl during the assault and was part of the reason for that teacher not saying anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

He raped the first girl anally. She needed corrective surgery.

The LGBTQ crowd has blood on their hands.

If you actually read the 25 page report, you would know that none of it has anything to do with the fact that dude was wearing a kilt. He wasn't in the girls bathroom to pee. It was merely a vacant place to commit his crime. He wasn't wearing a kilt to waltz into the bathroom undetected. He isn't gender fluid and none of this had anything to do with the transgender policy. He's a hetero violent sociopath and hopefully will spend the rest of his life in jail, because if not he WILL strike again.

He states himself he’s gender fluid and likes wearing skirts.

Which has nothing to do with anything in this case. How is it relevant? His victim agreed to meet him in the bathroom. Because they had had a consensual sexual relationship previously. It’s not like he wore a skirt to sneak into a girls bathroom and lay in wait.

The teacher’s aide who expressed concern about his behavior was accused of being transphobic. Perhaps that impacted the teacher who found the boy in the bathroom with the girl during the assault and was part of the reason for that teacher not saying anything?

The teacher didn’t see anything but four feet. She didn’t speak to them, or ask who was there or if everything was okay. She just walked out.