LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No teacher would risk getting fired by questioning a student's gender identity.

That’s not true. A Loudoun teacher refused to use students’ preferred pronouns and was fired. A judge then ordered him to be rehired.

Seriously - who wants to go through all that??

😀
Someone with integrity and respect for women

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It was radio today. I have to find it. You hand me the WaPo but don’t believe the Daily Wire and Rosiak? You would know more if you broadened your horizons a bit. The investigation started internally. It was the rape kit/hospital visit that put the true investigation into action that same day.

Are you suggesting that the Washington Post is not quoting the Sheriff's Office accurately? What evidence do you have about your claims regarding the investigation? What day do you believe the investigation started?

[Anonymous]

So if the issue is boys going in the girls bathroom the issue is not trans kids. It is boys. Raise your sons better so our daughters don’t get assaulted at school. This isn’t on trans kids.

[Anonymous]

Where's the part on the timeline when the Superintendent is directly questioned by a SB member (Beth Barts) if any assaults occurred in the girls' bathroom and he says no?

Also the part where the Superintendent is supposed to report sexual assaults to the SSIR and he didn't? https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/selection.do

I'm less concerned with the bathroom situation and more concerned about LCPS covering up rapes of any and all kinds. You can be for or against the bathroom policy but still not agree with rape cover-ups. You can believe victims even if their story does not move your agenda forward. You can admit you were wrong about your poster child for crazed fat white male domestic terrorists at school board meetings who obviously is there because he hates masks and/or BIPOC. Mature adults can think rationally and critically about these issues and see that it isn't all good vs. evil like some child's fairy tale.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Where's the part on the timeline when the Superintendent is directly questioned by a SB member (Beth Barts) if any assaults occurred in the girls' bathroom and he says no?

Do you have a transcript of this that you can point me to?

Anonymous wrote:
Also the part where the Superintendent is supposed to report sexual assaults to the SSIR and he didn't? https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/selection.do

My guess is that they were waiting for the investigation to determine what had occurred.

It is pretty clear from the police statement that they did not view this has an open and shut case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And incomplete. He forgot about the part where activists were bussed in and it was one of those activists who started harassing Smith’s wife at the meeting, calling her a liar, etc. Smith came to his wife’s defense. Activist had no consequences, of course, despite her behavior. This was reported by an eyewitness at the meeting.

I haven't read anything about the activist being bused in. I thought it was someone that the Smith's already knew. Pretty sure she had a daughter the same age. She told Smith she didn't believe his daughter.

That's appalling. His daughter was raped, but this lady was more interested in her agenda???

From what I read they knew each other. The lady told him she did not believe his daughter and then also threatened to ruin the father's plumbing business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem here is that LCPS and the principal didn’t do anything about it because they didn’t want to be viewed as anti trans. Instead the girls father filed a police report. The school refused to do so and ended up transferring the kid to another school where he/she then assaulted another girl.

The first part of this is not true. The SRO was immediately informed. LCPS, the Sheriff's office, and even Scott Smith (the girl's father) agree on this point.

I have just published a FAQ and Timeline gathering as much information as I could about this with links to related reporting:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1007838.page

He gave an interview saying that he was kept outside because he didn’t have an ID. They let his wife in without him (don’t get me started). His wife said they would not let their daughter speak so she spoke to her mother via hand signals when they weren’t looking. Otherwise the mother would not know she had been raped until later. If the SRO was immediately informed AND a proper report was made by the school stating sexual assault, it would have been treated more seriously. Instead the school denied rape occurred, and furthermore did not notify the parents at the school it even occurred

This is ridiculous. How could they not allow the daughter to talk to her mother?
Imagine you are a MINOR, and you’ve just been RAPED, and you are treated this way?
Imagine your CHILD being treated this way?
This is absolutely absurd.

I’m a little confused about the police response. Did the parents notify the the sheriff or was it the school?
I cannot believe the father waited to come public after the 2nd incident. I would have been yelling off the rooftops on May 29.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And incomplete. He forgot about the part where activists were bussed in and it was one of those activists who started harassing Smith’s wife at the meeting, calling her a liar, etc. Smith came to his wife’s defense. Activist had no consequences, of course, despite her behavior. This was reported by an eyewitness at the meeting.

I haven't read anything about the activist being bused in. I thought it was someone that the Smith's already knew. Pretty sure she had a daughter the same age. She told Smith she didn't believe his daughter.

That's appalling. His daughter was raped, but this lady was more interested in her agenda???

From what I read they knew each other. The lady told him she did not believe his daughter and then also threatened to ruin the father's plumbing business.

Surely you do not believe that a rape can only happen when people don’t know each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And incomplete. He forgot about the part where activists were bussed in and it was one of those activists who started harassing Smith’s wife at the meeting, calling her a liar, etc. Smith came to his wife’s defense. Activist had no consequences, of course, despite her behavior. This was reported by an eyewitness at the meeting.

I haven't read anything about the activist being bused in. I thought it was someone that the Smith's already knew. Pretty sure she had a daughter the same age. She told Smith she didn't believe his daughter.

That's appalling. His daughter was raped, but this lady was more interested in her agenda???

From what I read they knew each other. The lady told him she did not believe his daughter and then also threatened to ruin the father's plumbing business.

Surely you do not believe that a rape can only happen when people don’t know each other?

PP here, I was saying the woman at the school board meeting knew the girl's parents and was telling them she did not believe his daughter. I wasn't referring to the victim and the assailant. I don't know if they knew each other or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And incomplete. He forgot about the part where activists were bussed in and it was one of those activists who started harassing Smith’s wife at the meeting, calling her a liar, etc. Smith came to his wife’s defense. Activist had no consequences, of course, despite her behavior. This was reported by an eyewitness at the meeting.

I haven't read anything about the activist being bused in. I thought it was someone that the Smith's already knew. Pretty sure she had a daughter the same age. She told Smith she didn't believe his daughter.

That's appalling. His daughter was raped, but this lady was more interested in her agenda???

From what I read they knew each other. The lady told him she did not believe his daughter and then also threatened to ruin the father's plumbing business.

Surely you do not believe that a rape can only happen when people don’t know each other?

PP here, I was saying the woman at the school board meeting knew the girl's parents and was telling them she did not believe his daughter. I wasn't referring to the victim and the assailant. I don't know if they knew each other or not.

Well, if she want in the bathroom when it happened, or didn’t administer or process the rape kit, then her opinion is absolutely worthless.

[Anonymous]

*wasn’t

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

This is why LCPS needs an alternative school again.

It used to be when a kid did something like this the first time, the kid was sent to Douglas School.

When I was growing up in the LCPS system, kids got sent there who started lots of fights, fought with teachers physically, groped a fellow student, got caught with drugs, etc.

Two girls got caught snorting pixie sticks in middle school and got sent to Douglas until they started high school. A teacher caught a boy grope a cheerleader until her skirt and was sent there when I was in 10th grade to finish out his high school career.

[Anonymous]

I’m a little confused about the police response. Did the parents notify the the sheriff or was it the school?
I cannot believe the father waited to come public after the 2nd incident. I would have been yelling off the rooftops on May 29.

One of the stories said that the school told them they wanted to handle it 'in house." There was an SRO at the school who was involved from the beginning. Not sure how all that works in. I got the impression that the sheriff was called because the dad went ballistic and/or demanded police. Then went to hospital where rape evidence was attained.

The SRO apparently did not believe the girl. Was it because he didn't believe the perp did it or did he just not believe her?

The story is complicated or simple. No way anyone can defend the way it was handled.

And, to get the dad painted as a "domestic terrorist" when LCPS had to know there was a lot more involved is especially troubling. One thing for sure, the SB had to know about it before the last meeting. They had to know about it before the NSBA/DOJ labeled Smith as the poster child of "domestic terroism."

That SB needs to go.

[Anonymous]

I think everyone needs to stop talking about the suspect's gender. It means NOTHING in this case.

From what I know from having kids at Stone Bridge, the suspect wasn't trans. The suspect identifies as nonbinary. The suspect's gender identity is incorrectly being made the focus of the first incident instead of the assault itself. The suspect went into that bathroom to assault the victim at Stone Bridge and held her against her will just like he did at Broad Run.

The gender identity of the suspect nor the rooms matter... the GD act of violence matters!

Also, calls for the school board to resign need to stop as well. That's taking focus off of the facts: the freakin' school board hadn't even been notified on June 22 when Mr. Smith came to the meeting as an upset parent. The SB members took him as a nutcase "anti-trans" parent because no one had notified them that almost a month prior, there had been a rape! The superintendent hadn't even been informed on June 22!

Shut up about the gender identity, shut up about the stupid school board, even shut up about Ziegler... WHO kept the rape allegation from the SB and Superintendent? That is what I want to know. I want that made public ASAP and those people GONE. Unacceptable.