LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Can anyone explain why the bathroom debate is still happening, when it appears to have absolutely no relevance to the assaults?

[Anonymous]

Regarding the timeline…

From the WTOP article:

“ The young suspect is charged with felony sexual assault counts in connection with the May 28 incident at Stone Bridge High School.”

“The investigation was complex, and a public announcement had the potential to identify a juvenile victim,” the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release.

“The sheriff’s office was contacted “within minutes of receiving the initial report on May 28,” Wayde Byard, public information officer for Loudoun County Public Schools, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.”

“The teen, then 14, was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy for bathroom assault on July 8. Biberaj said DNA samples were submitted to the Department of Forensic Science for analysis.”

After a juvenile is charged and detained, prosecutors have 21 days before they are required to either adjudicate his case, or release the suspect.

“When 21 days was about to expire, we hadn’t gotten the DNA analysis — and it was necessary to have that to establish one of the charges. So, we had to either try it without the DNA and run the risk of not making that case, or ask the court for additional time,” Biberaj said.

****
Why did it take five weeks for the boy to be arrested?

Why can’t the County run a DNA test in less than two months (between the attack on May 28 and when they put the boy on electronic monitoring at the end of July)?

Was the boy in juvenile detention for the 21 days between his arrest and electronic monitoring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should we make unisex classrooms to be sure boys can't sexually assault people in the class?

I have no idea why, no matter how you feel about trans people, you all are conflating trans and opportunistic predators? Are you really that awful you would use this to make a cheap political point?

Where are you all yelling about bathrooms when boys are assaulted by other boys in unisex bathrooms, or girls by other girls? Because this happens a lot.

Or what about this case? https://13wham.com/news/local/gates-chili-student-facing-rape-criminal-sex-act-charges

No trans issue here....

You know why. The same reason that people conflate pedophiles and gay men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the bathroom debate is still happening, when it appears to have absolutely no relevance to the assaults?

Excellent question. It seems there are far more relevant issues at hand re: this case.

[Anonymous]

Is it possible that at the time of the board meeting where Smith was arrested, the board actually didn’t know about the assault? I assume the superintendent knew, so perhaps my point doesn’t matter. But it’s possible the board really thought Smith was crazy because they didn’t know about the assault, and would’ve acted differently if they knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the bathroom debate is still happening, when it appears to have absolutely no relevance to the assaults?

Excellent question. It seems there are far more relevant issues at hand re: this case.

Because there seems to be the idea that LCPS hid info about the initial assault because it involved a boy (who may or may not have been wearing a skirt) assaulting a girl in a restroom...while a huge debate was going on about transgender access to restrooms. So, the optics here arent good.
I agree, the issue to me is that 2 sexual assaults occurred, perpetrated by the same boy, and there was what appears to be a cover up. But, based on the ongoing transgender bathroom debate, that has turned into the focus here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that at the time of the board meeting where Smith was arrested, the board actually didn’t know about the assault? I assume the superintendent knew, so perhaps my point doesn’t matter. But it’s possible the board really thought Smith was crazy because they didn’t know about the assault, and would’ve acted differently if they knew.

Yes, it is possible. First, the school was asked to not complete their own investigation until the police were done and second, the school board is kept in the dark on these issues prior to any hearings on the matter (re: expulsion) so that they can be non biased and the student gets his due process rights reserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why the bathroom debate is still happening, when it appears to have absolutely no relevance to the assaults?

Excellent question. It seems there are far more relevant issues at hand re: this case.

Because there seems to be the idea that LCPS hid info about the initial assault because it involved a boy (who may or may not have been wearing a skirt) assaulting a girl in a restroom...while a huge debate was going on about transgender access to restrooms. So, the optics here arent good.
I agree, the issue to me is that 2 sexual assaults occurred, perpetrated by the same boy, and there was what appears to be a cover up. But, based on the ongoing transgender bathroom debate, that has turned into the focus here.

No one here is trying to attack transgender people so get a grip. It appears the school may have wanted to sweep this assault under the rug because they knew it would be used against them since they were debating the transgender policy. Whether the boy was transgender or not from the father's account he was wearing a skirt when the assault happened in the girl's bathroom. Of course if parents knew this many of them would have flipped out at the school board meeting that took place a few weeks after the attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that at the time of the board meeting where Smith was arrested, the board actually didn’t know about the assault? I assume the superintendent knew, so perhaps my point doesn’t matter. But it’s possible the board really thought Smith was crazy because they didn’t know about the assault, and would’ve acted differently if they knew.

Yes, it is possible. First, the school was asked to not complete their own investigation until the police were done and second, the school board is kept in the dark on these issues prior to any hearings on the matter (re: expulsion) so that they can be non biased and the student gets his due process rights reserved.

There is a Reddit thread that states that the School Board is purposely kept out of disciplinary measures so that students aren’t deprived of due process upon appeal. Given the facts of this case, it is more likely than not that the SB didn’t know.

[Anonymous]

I am totally perplexed by those defending the current bathroom policies. Currently, anyone can use the girl's bathroom if they merely claim to identify as a girl. Perhaps in a utopian society this would work. But it hinges on the notion that sexual predators are too ethical to ever feign gender fluidity. You all should just admit that the occasional sexual assault is the price you are willing to pay to prevent transgender youth from the supposed indignity of using a unisex bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that at the time of the board meeting where Smith was arrested, the board actually didn’t know about the assault? I assume the superintendent knew, so perhaps my point doesn’t matter. But it’s possible the board really thought Smith was crazy because they didn’t know about the assault, and would’ve acted differently if they knew.

Yes, it is possible. First, the school was asked to not complete their own investigation until the police were done and second, the school board is kept in the dark on these issues prior to any hearings on the matter (re: expulsion) so that they can be non biased and the student gets his due process rights reserved.

There is a Reddit thread that states that the School Board is purposely kept out of disciplinary measures so that students aren’t deprived of due process upon appeal. Given the facts of this case, it is more likely than not that the SB didn’t know.

And I now realize that I quoted the wrong post with exactly the same info. Sorry!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we make unisex classrooms to be sure boys can't sexually assault people in the class?

I have no idea why, no matter how you feel about trans people, you all are conflating trans and opportunistic predators? Are you really that awful you would use this to make a cheap political point?

Where are you all yelling about bathrooms when boys are assaulted by other boys in unisex bathrooms, or girls by other girls? Because this happens a lot.

Or what about this case? https://13wham.com/news/local/gates-chili-student-facing-rape-criminal-sex-act-charges

No trans issue here....

You are equating classrooms to bathrooms? Classrooms that have adult supervision with bathrooms where the kids are on their own? You don't understand the difference?

Wasn't the boy in question here accused of assaulting another girl in a classroom? I believe he was. Also, how about you address the substance of the argument?

The May 28 rape was in a bathroom. The victim had told her father that the boy was "wearing a skirt".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding the timeline…

From the WTOP article:

“ The young suspect is charged with felony sexual assault counts in connection with the May 28 incident at Stone Bridge High School.”

“The investigation was complex, and a public announcement had the potential to identify a juvenile victim,” the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release.

“The sheriff’s office was contacted “within minutes of receiving the initial report on May 28,” Wayde Byard, public information officer for Loudoun County Public Schools, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.”

“The teen, then 14, was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy for bathroom assault on July 8. Biberaj said DNA samples were submitted to the Department of Forensic Science for analysis.”

After a juvenile is charged and detained, prosecutors have 21 days before they are required to either adjudicate his case, or release the suspect.

“When 21 days was about to expire, we hadn’t gotten the DNA analysis — and it was necessary to have that to establish one of the charges. So, we had to either try it without the DNA and run the risk of not making that case, or ask the court for additional time,” Biberaj said.

****
Why did it take five weeks for the boy to be arrested?

Why can’t the County run a DNA test in less than two months (between the attack on May 28 and when they put the boy on electronic monitoring at the end of July)?

Was the boy in juvenile detention for the 21 days between his arrest and electronic monitoring?

LCPS wanted to suppress the story in order to pass their agenda forward. They didn't even initially involve the police. The father took the daughter to the hospital for testing after the school wanted to "handle it internally".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we please also stop referring to the boy as "transgender" or "gender fluid" - he isn't.

Why? What do you call a boy who wears a skirt and chooses to use the girls bathroom?

Well, I call a trans girl who uses the girls bathroom a girl.

I call a boy who wears a skirt (which hasn't been confirmed yet via the police report) and rapes girls a rapist.

I'm sure you can find different labels, but you can be pro trans and anti rape. I know it's a lot for your little brain to handle.

Why can’t you discuss this without resorting to name-calling?

Honestly? Because living in Loudoun I see so many of you on our Facebook posts and I'm sick of it. Some of us actually know the families and it's pretty shitty for folks to weigh in because Tucker Carlson told them too.

Is it that hard to believe that non-Fox-watching, middle-of-the-road people have concerns about this?

+1 I'm a Democrat. I'm also a rape survivor. I think it's dangerous to make it normal for biological men to just walk into vulnerable places like women's bathrooms and locker rooms unquestioned.

You say that out loud in Loudoun and you get doxxed. That's why this Dad was mad at the meeting -- the woman with the rainbow heart shirt told him she would ruin his plumbing business by doxxing him online because he was lying about his daughter being raped. He called her the b word and the cop pulled on his arm and then you've seen the rest.

Please lend your voice to this cause. I am also a rape survivor and I live in Loudoun and it is terrifying that our prosecutor is not going to stand up for victims.

Who was this lady? Is the part of the school community? It an outsider who came in specifically to antagonize the dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we make unisex classrooms to be sure boys can't sexually assault people in the class?

I have no idea why, no matter how you feel about trans people, you all are conflating trans and opportunistic predators? Are you really that awful you would use this to make a cheap political point?

Where are you all yelling about bathrooms when boys are assaulted by other boys in unisex bathrooms, or girls by other girls? Because this happens a lot.

Or what about this case? https://13wham.com/news/local/gates-chili-student-facing-rape-criminal-sex-act-charges

No trans issue here....

You are equating classrooms to bathrooms? Classrooms that have adult supervision with bathrooms where the kids are on their own? You don't understand the difference?

Wasn't the boy in question here accused of assaulting another girl in a classroom? I believe he was. Also, how about you address the substance of the argument?

The May 28 rape was in a bathroom. The victim had told her father that the boy was "wearing a skirt".

So, the first incident was back in May. Almost 5 months ago. And the first time it’s covered by WTOP is yesterday?

Why didn’t this story get more local media coverage? That is mind-boggling to me.