LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

From what the dad said, the SRO was notified day of but they were all pushing handling it internally. The father and mother took their daughter to the hospital that same day to be examined and to have a rape kit done. The hospital are mandatory reporters

[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?

Who said the woman knew the parents? Another parent and eyewitness said she was one of the activists bussed in.

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: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.

As you said, instead of letting him speak, they labeled him as a nut. Then after he and his wife were harassed and threatened, they sat by while he was arrested. That alone is appalling. Regarding gender identity, given there was a policy up for vote and given the kid being gender fluid, there was every reason for the school district to want to suppress the story.

Oh, and because the super and board claim they weren’t notified, that doesn’t make it true. Doesn’t sound like Smith kept his mouth shut and there was an active police investigation. And they had the presence of mind to move the kid to a different school.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

If you think the school super was not notified about the INVESTIGATION after something like this occurs, you’re high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

Thanks for that clarification. And the school could not report to VDOE an incident for which they have not made a finding. If they do, then it will be reported to VDOE. Allegations are not reported, findings are.

Are you implying they had no knowledge of the sexual assault?

That’s what they are implying. Unbelievable considering Rosiak’s new story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I just read Jefff's timeline. Seems as if the report went to school officials first who in turn reported it to law enforcement "within minutes" of receiving the report. So clearly the school new.

The school knew. But not necessarily the SB or super. As and LCPS parent I have no trouble believing they were all cluelessly in the dark. Par for the course for them.

All the more reason to resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Yes. I believe it started that day but not because of the school. Notifying the school resource officer is different than the main LCPD office. My source is the father.

Straight from the latest article in the Daily Wire, which broke the story:
“ While the suspect in the May 28 alleged assault was not arrested until July 8 following the conclusion of an investigation, police officers were present at the school that day, law enforcement was notified of the incident, and a police report was filed on the attack, though it is not clear who filed the report.”

[Anonymous]

The police were there that day, yes , because the school called on the father. From Rosiak’s latest story:

“But an email from Stone Bridge Principal Tim Flynn, which was sent to the entire community at 4:48 pm the day of the alleged rape, told students and parents that “There was an incident in the main office area today that required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to dispatch deputies to Stone Bridge. The incident was confined to the main office and the entrance area to the school. There was no threat to the safety of the student body… Students might have noticed Sheriff’s Office personnel on campus and I wanted to let you know that something out of the ordinary happened at school today.” There was no mention of the alleged attack.

This corresponds to the story offered by Scott Smith, the victim’s father, who told The Daily Wire that police arrived because the school called them on him for making a scene about his impression that it was not treating the incident seriously.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typically, a trans guy would not rape a girl. This disturbing boy is obviously not really trans. It is so unfortunate that the ultra right wings are trying to use this terrible incident against the LGBT community. Any boy, even wearing pants, can easily walk into a high school girl’s bathroom without anyone in the hallways doing anything about it. The hallways are either chaotic or empty and everyone is too busy getting to their classes on time.

Why do you say this? Transwomen have criminality rates similar to men. Someone who identifies as trans is not exempt from the possibility of committing a sexual assault. https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically, a trans guy would not rape a girl. This disturbing boy is obviously not really trans. It is so unfortunate that the ultra right wings are trying to use this terrible incident against the LGBT community. Any boy, even wearing pants, can easily walk into a high school girl’s bathroom without anyone in the hallways doing anything about it. The hallways are either chaotic or empty and everyone is too busy getting to their classes on time.

Why do you say this? Transwomen have criminality rates similar to men. Someone who identifies as trans is not exempt from the possibility of committing a sexual assault. https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

I realize that you are making a broader point, but let's remember that nobody who knows the student involved has said that the individual is trans. The police have not said that and Mr. Smith (the girl's father) has not even said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The police were there that day, yes , because the school called on the father. From Rosiak’s latest story:

“But an email from Stone Bridge Principal Tim Flynn, which was sent to the entire community at 4:48 pm the day of the alleged rape, told students and parents that “There was an incident in the main office area today that required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to dispatch deputies to Stone Bridge. The incident was confined to the main office and the entrance area to the school. There was no threat to the safety of the student body… Students might have noticed Sheriff’s Office personnel on campus and I wanted to let you know that something out of the ordinary happened at school today.” There was no mention of the alleged attack.

This corresponds to the story offered by Scott Smith, the victim’s father, who told The Daily Wire that police arrived because the school called them on him for making a scene about his impression that it was not treating the incident seriously.“

This is how the district gets away with covering up incidents. The district says the police were called that day. But they don’t finish the sentence.
Police were immediately called that day… to calm down a distraught parent.
Police were immediately called that day… to report a possible sexual assault.

Technically the SRO is a police officer. So the principal isn’t lying that police were immediately notified if he called the SRO to come to the school office.

The more important question is did the principal contact the police (not just the school resource officer) so members of the sexual crimes investigation team could quickly arrive at the school. Was the bathroom closed off as a potential crime scene? Doesn’t sound like it.

[Anonymous]

If my kid is ever sexually assaulted at school, I’m dialing 911. F the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Forcible sodomy generally requires a penis.

Regardless of gender identity.

In that respect, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't matter what is the accused's gender identity

Not always, from a legal standpoint. It can include digits (fingers) and objects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Forcible sodomy generally requires a penis.

Regardless of gender identity.

In that respect, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't matter what is the accused's gender identity

Not always, from a legal standpoint. It can include digits (fingers) and objects.

The Virginia statue does not.

A. An accused shall be guilty of forcible sodomy if he or she engages in cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, or anal intercourse with a complaining witness whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in such acts with any other person, and

1. The complaining witness is less than 13 years of age; or

2. The act is accomplished against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person, or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

It still makes no sense because SB members have stated on record that they did not find out about the sexual assaults until recently when they came out in the media.

Clearly, the law was broken as well as the chain of command.

I have 2 kids who have gone through LCPS and 2 more in HS right now at a LCPS high school. I'm extremely upset that it appears that someone in LCPS was actively engaging in a coverup.

Now I'm off to reread the media coverage to see if it has been mentioned that the Superintendent was notified about SA #1 after the boy was charged in July.