Grand Jury report on LCPS sexual assault cases is unsealed

[Anonymous]

They couldn't find a specific law to fit the facts, but the jury wanted to indict the LCPS lawyer. Looks like he should be referred to be disbarred. Withholding evidence, and only responding after some documents were produced by an official with a different lawyer not selected by the main lawyer.
The grand jury accuses him of coordinating a story with the school board members, that the father mentioned policy 8040 when he showed up at school and that's why this was listed as a policy 8040 incident in an e-mail.

[Anonymous]

While I am totally enraged with LCPS, I am also enraged with the Sherriff’s and court’s handling of this as well. The boy’s grandmother told them she didn’t think they understood how bad it was and that the boy was a “sociopath.” The court said he couldn’t return to Stone Bridge but it was fine to send him somewhere else? He anally raped a girl!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony at the school board meeting that there is no record of sexual assaults in the restrooms.
This was called a lie by another witness.
There is record of a sexual assault. Not sexual assaults plural.

OP here.

There are two assaults. One at one school the other after the boy was transferred he was convicted in a court of law. None of that is in dispute.

This investigates more the actions of LCPS.

Sorry, my grammar got away from me there.

Assault 1 was in May. Assault 2 was in September. Different schools.

The second one was not in a restroom.

I never said it was. Why would you bring that up?

Just being semantic, and pointing out a defense that the official did not lie at the school board meeting when he denied a record of assault in restrooms.

The first assault did, in fact, happen in a restroom. Arguing semantics in this instance is ridiculous and wildly insensitive in any case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony at the school board meeting that there is no record of sexual assaults in the restrooms.
This was called a lie by another witness.
There is record of a sexual assault. Not sexual assaults plural.

OP here.

There are two assaults. One at one school the other after the boy was transferred he was convicted in a court of law. None of that is in dispute.

This investigates more the actions of LCPS.

Sorry, my grammar got away from me there.

Assault 1 was in May. Assault 2 was in September. Different schools.

The second one was not in a restroom.

I never said it was. Why would you bring that up?

Just being semantic, and pointing out a defense that the official did not lie at the school board meeting when he denied a record of assault in restrooms.

The first assault did, in fact, happen in a restroom. Arguing semantics in this instance is ridiculous and wildly insensitive in any case.

I'm saying I think the language was carefully chosen for the school board meeting. Perhaps even with consultation from the LCPS counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony at the school board meeting that there is no record of sexual assaults in the restrooms.
This was called a lie by another witness.
There is record of a sexual assault. Not sexual assaults plural.

OP here.

There are two assaults. One at one school the other after the boy was transferred he was convicted in a court of law. None of that is in dispute.

This investigates more the actions of LCPS.

Sorry, my grammar got away from me there.

Assault 1 was in May. Assault 2 was in September. Different schools.

The second one was not in a restroom.

I never said it was. Why would you bring that up?

Just being semantic, and pointing out a defense that the official did not lie at the school board meeting when he denied a record of assault in restrooms.

The first assault did, in fact, happen in a restroom. Arguing semantics in this instance is ridiculous and wildly insensitive in any case.

I'm saying I think the language was carefully chosen for the school board meeting. Perhaps even with consultation from the LCPS counsel.

I'm curious whether you read the report? No. See pages 6-8. The question at the June meeting asked was "do we have [sexual] assaults in our bathrooms or in our locker rooms, regularly?" The answer given was "To my knowledge, we don't have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms."

The Stone Bridge assault -- which did happen in a bathroom -- happened in May.

Now, if you want to be cute and say the word "sexual" wasn't explicitly before the word "assault," by all means go there. But the context was clear. And sexual assault is still assault.

[Anonymous]

The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The report faults the school for not opening a Title IX investigation, and one official was dogged in pointing out these flaws in September.

I don't think schools and colleges should be doing these investigations, and instead the police should be handling it.

The police (LCSO) were involved from the beginning. An SRO from the school was involved. The LCSO dropped the ball and the right wing have tried to use the whole event to destroy the school board and the Super who do not lean right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony at the school board meeting that there is no record of sexual assaults in the restrooms.
This was called a lie by another witness.
There is record of a sexual assault. Not sexual assaults plural.

OP here.

There are two assaults. One at one school the other after the boy was transferred he was convicted in a court of law. None of that is in dispute.

This investigates more the actions of LCPS.

Sorry, my grammar got away from me there.

Assault 1 was in May. Assault 2 was in September. Different schools.

I thought there was question about that initially because she had sex with him in the past in that bathroom and there was actually confusion as to whether she consented or not to anal sex.

The second one was not in a restroom.

I never said it was. Why would you bring that up?

Just being semantic, and pointing out a defense that the official did not lie at the school board meeting when he denied a record of assault in restrooms.

The first assault did, in fact, happen in a restroom. Arguing semantics in this instance is ridiculous and wildly insensitive in any case.

I'm saying I think the language was carefully chosen for the school board meeting. Perhaps even with consultation from the LCPS counsel.

I'm curious whether you read the report? No. See pages 6-8. The question at the June meeting asked was "do we have [sexual] assaults in our bathrooms or in our locker rooms, regularly?" The answer given was "To my knowledge, we don't have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms."

The Stone Bridge assault -- which did happen in a bathroom -- happened in May.

Now, if you want to be cute and say the word "sexual" wasn't explicitly before the word "assault," by all means go there. But the context was clear. And sexual assault is still assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

He had to walk a tightrope with that. If he had said there was a sexual assault that probably would have been actionable as it would have assume the student was guilty. The have to be careful about foia as well. Students have rights including the student who supposedly assaulted the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

He had to walk a tightrope with that. If he had said there was a sexual assault that probably would have been actionable as it would have assume the student was guilty. The have to be careful about foia as well. Students have rights including the student who supposedly assaulted the other.

“Supposedly?” He was convicted in a court of law and is locked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

He had to walk a tightrope with that. If he had said there was a sexual assault that probably would have been actionable as it would have assume the student was guilty. The have to be careful about foia as well. Students have rights including the student who supposedly assaulted the other.

“Supposedly?” He was convicted in a court of law and is locked up.

DP. Not at the time when Ziegler made the statement, which is the relevant time for purposes of this analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

He had to walk a tightrope with that. If he had said there was a sexual assault that probably would have been actionable as it would have assume the student was guilty. The have to be careful about foia as well. Students have rights including the student who supposedly assaulted the other.

“Supposedly?” He was convicted in a court of law and is locked up.

DP. Not at the time when Ziegler made the statement, which is the relevant time for purposes of this analysis.

He didn’t have to name any students. He could have said that one student reported an assault and there would be an investigation. He didn’t. He straight up lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grand jury report literally states that the superintendents answer that sexual assaults do not happen in restrooms was an intentional lie. Ziegler does not deny he lied. He’s hid behind “ongoing investigation.”

He had to walk a tightrope with that. If he had said there was a sexual assault that probably would have been actionable as it would have assume the student was guilty. The have to be careful about foia as well. Students have rights including the student who supposedly assaulted the other.

“Supposedly?” He was convicted in a court of law and is locked up.

DP. Not at the time when Ziegler made the statement, which is the relevant time for purposes of this analysis.

Meh, he could have said there was an accusation. He was literally discussing it several hours earlier.

I will say I don’t fault the school for reacting to the father posing a threat, though. However justified the father was, he still caused a disruption at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report faults the school for not opening a Title IX investigation, and one official was dogged in pointing out these flaws in September.

I don't think schools and colleges should be doing these investigations, and instead the police should be handling it.

The police (LCSO) were involved from the beginning. An SRO from the school was involved. The LCSO dropped the ball and the right wing have tried to use the whole event to destroy the school board and the Super who do not lean right.

And the sheriff is about as evil a rabid right-winger as they get. He is really a villain in all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI:

https://www.loudoun.gov/SpecialGrandJury?fbclid=IwAR0p-E9IBVzlLDjV5DV4ZZppna8wdl16Sp885j8B6goUFhKcarlCTUB1YEY


I've read it and am trying to make sense of the document's purpose. By that I mean is it really a dispassionate analysis of what happened (because while I think they largely get it right they seem to not ask a lot of questions about the involvement of other entities including the LCSO) or it proof positive that the findings were baked in when the investigation was announced? In other words, is this akin to an indictment? Keeping in mind the expression that a prosecutor can indict a bologna sandwich). Some passages in the report give me pause, particularly those that seem to characterize behaviors of people sending e-mails. In other words, is it a bunch of allegations? Or is it conclusive?

That said, the recommendations seem reasonable. And they do fall well short of recommending dismissal of the superintendent, etc.

Jeff used to have a sticky about this issue (forgot to check if it was still there). I'm going to self-report my own thread here so he can monitor it. I'd like to try to keep this conversation civil and analytical about the significance of the report and avoid the hysteria that erupted when all of this happened a year ago and there was a lot of bad information out there.

This kind of report is what happens when the investigation is completely one-sided and does not reflect an objective analysis/adjudication.