GDS Student Newspaper posts about the horrible incident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, GDS tuition is paying this company? I am in shock. https://tmusallc.com/investigation-consulting-services/
Is this true?


Who We Are:
Investigators and analysts who discreetly manage the most demanding cases. We are skilled at locating hidden assets, identifying online threats, and exposing fraud. Our staff has roots in law enforcement, investigative journalism, forensic accounting, and intelligence. All are thorough and results-driven.

What We Do:
Customize investigations to meet the needs of our clients: individuals to multinationals, solo practitioners to corporate law firms, startups to leaders in finance, philanthropy, entertainment, tech, higher education, public health, and art.

Forensic accounting to assist individuals, government agencies, and business entities and corporations uncover financial irregularities and ensure overall compliance.

Deliver timely, reliable, and admissible intelligence.

Vet job candidates and avoid hiring mistakes by providing context and background.

Pair our rigorous desktop research with human source intelligence and analysis to help clients mitgate risk and make better business decisions.

Locate and interview witnesses and conduct background checks for deposition preparation.

Offer a range of strategic and crisis consulting services that assess the safety of travel destinations and neutralize adverse media coverage.

Monitor social media and the dark web for reputational and physical threats and create online content to lessen the impact of negative posts.

The person hired was a woman. She "has conducted and managed hundreds of high-stakes and sensitive investigations involving sexual misconduct, harassment, discrimination, domestic violence, stalking, hazing, bullying, retaliation, and other misconduct. Julie is regularly called on to consult in matters across a wide range of institutions and organizations, including K–12 schools, colleges and universities, museums, sports organizations, nonprofits, and corporations, both in the U.S. and internationally. She also develops tailored policies and protocols and provides one-on-one and group training to help clients respond to misconduct with care, compliance, and clarity."

She "began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted homicide and felony cases from investigation through trial. She gained extensive experience as a member of the Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence Units and served in the Appeals Bureau, briefing and arguing cases before the Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and the New York Court of Appeals. "

GDS hired an independent investigator who seems to be qualified. MPD did a separate investigation. As others noted, two month after the fact, it is quite difficult to get any evidence two months after the fact. In the school's communication, they said there had been no other bathroom incidents, contrary to reports here. The family is trying to acquire additional evidence. In my opinion, the school's main job, absent corroborating evidence, was to strengthen security protocols to ensure a similar incident could not happen again. Beyond that, the challenge remains that the victim said there was no identifying information for the perpetrators. It would be very difficult to sanction any student without hard evidence.

I think this is where it starts and stops.

Why not encourage anyone with information to reach out to MPD or investigators when hired? Why not encourage that now? Why not change safety procedures?

It seems like this is pretty much the only argument being made, that the school has an independent duty to “reach out to the school.” But per the article MPD asked them not to, and it is also well known that making blanket calls for information in this way can distort the results of an investigation. You are all really grasping at straws.

Where does anything say that?

From the school newspaper - "In the Feb. 13 email, Shaw said MPD asked school administrators to “refrain from broad communication to our community to avoid interference with their investigation.”

That might have been appropriate in the immediate aftermath when MPD thought it might find credible leads on its own. But that doesn't mean the school shouldn't have pushed back on that at any point in the year+ that followed. At some point, a community-wide email really should have gone out.

I would be very hesitant to believe any statement that GDS has made. I don't believe they're telling the truth and I doubt MPD would say this to them.

Especially because they've been playing word games with things like "credible".

[Anonymous]

Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

You’re confused because there is one/several nut jobs on this thread who are spinning out psychologically. The best information is in the student newspaper article (kudos to those kids - very well written.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be confusion here (maybe planted intentionally?) about the difference between "no credible evidence" and "no credible leads."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

1. MPD saying the initial complaint was credible enough to investigate does not mean it is still credible post-investigation. And credible for the purposes of investigating is a very low bar.
2. GDS followed best practices and what MPD instructed it to do. They hired an independent investigator and did not (per MPD directive) issue a general call to the school for information.
3. MPD and the investigator found no further evidence.
4. Your assertion that GDS should have done more or is engaged in a cover up is wholly fabricated and unsupported.

[Anonymous]

no? I think the police said no credible leads. it was credible enough to be investigated but after that, dont we have to believe the police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

1. MPD saying the initial complaint was credible enough to investigate does not mean it is still credible post-investigation. And credible for the purposes of investigating is a very low bar.
2. GDS followed best practices and what MPD instructed it to do. They hired an independent investigator and did not (per MPD directive) issue a general call to the school for information.
3. MPD and the investigator found no further evidence.
4. Your assertion that GDS should have done more or is engaged in a cover up is wholly fabricated and unsupported.

Well said. If you are truly concerned, suggest speaking to kids and parents in the relevant grades, there is context that could never be shared by the school. Most people seem comfortable with the schools response and the overall environment. Of course, they are the silent majority and you are likely hearing the vocal minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

1. MPD saying the initial complaint was credible enough to investigate does not mean it is still credible post-investigation. And credible for the purposes of investigating is a very low bar.
2. GDS followed best practices and what MPD instructed it to do. They hired an independent investigator and did not (per MPD directive) issue a general call to the school for information.
3. MPD and the investigator found no further evidence.
4. Your assertion that GDS should have done more or is engaged in a cover up is wholly fabricated and unsupported.

Well said. If you are truly concerned, suggest speaking to kids and parents in the relevant grades, there is context that could never be shared by the school. Most people seem comfortable with the schools response and the overall environment. Of course, they are the silent majority and you are likely hearing the vocal minority.

As a parent with kids in the relevant grades, exactly this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GDS parent here.

No parent that we know despises Russell. We think he's been a strong leader of the school.

Russell seems to have his supporters, but a lot of people see a very different side of his leadership. From where I stand, he hasn’t shown what strong Head of School leadership should look like. Just look at the turnover on his admin team over the years. Great Heads mentor and grow other leaders. They build stable teams. That hasn’t happened here. It’s been more of a revolving door. And it’s not random — some of the strongest administrators, especially the ones who tried to put real policies in place and hold faculty, students, and parents accountable, are the ones who ended up leaving.

There are also real concerns about the school’s direction. Teaching practices feel dated in many places, and there’s a perception among other local independent school folks that faculty pretty much run the place, which makes meaningful change almost impossible.

And then there’s the school newspaper. It feels like it operates with little meaningful adult oversight. A high school paper isn’t the same thing as an independent press outlet — schools have a responsibility to set boundaries and ensure standards. Some of the content has crossed lines and felt wildly inappropriate for a school setting.

When talented leaders keep walking away, accountability feels inconsistent, and even student platforms lack clear guardrails, it’s fair to question what’s really going on at the top and at the school in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, GDS tuition is paying this company? I am in shock. https://tmusallc.com/investigation-consulting-services/
Is this true?


Who We Are:
Investigators and analysts who discreetly manage the most demanding cases. We are skilled at locating hidden assets, identifying online threats, and exposing fraud. Our staff has roots in law enforcement, investigative journalism, forensic accounting, and intelligence. All are thorough and results-driven.

What We Do:
Customize investigations to meet the needs of our clients: individuals to multinationals, solo practitioners to corporate law firms, startups to leaders in finance, philanthropy, entertainment, tech, higher education, public health, and art.

Forensic accounting to assist individuals, government agencies, and business entities and corporations uncover financial irregularities and ensure overall compliance.

Deliver timely, reliable, and admissible intelligence.

Vet job candidates and avoid hiring mistakes by providing context and background.

Pair our rigorous desktop research with human source intelligence and analysis to help clients mitgate risk and make better business decisions.

Locate and interview witnesses and conduct background checks for deposition preparation.

Offer a range of strategic and crisis consulting services that assess the safety of travel destinations and neutralize adverse media coverage.

Monitor social media and the dark web for reputational and physical threats and create online content to lessen the impact of negative posts.

The person hired was a woman. She "has conducted and managed hundreds of high-stakes and sensitive investigations involving sexual misconduct, harassment, discrimination, domestic violence, stalking, hazing, bullying, retaliation, and other misconduct. Julie is regularly called on to consult in matters across a wide range of institutions and organizations, including K–12 schools, colleges and universities, museums, sports organizations, nonprofits, and corporations, both in the U.S. and internationally. She also develops tailored policies and protocols and provides one-on-one and group training to help clients respond to misconduct with care, compliance, and clarity."

She "began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted homicide and felony cases from investigation through trial. She gained extensive experience as a member of the Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence Units and served in the Appeals Bureau, briefing and arguing cases before the Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and the New York Court of Appeals. "

GDS hired an independent investigator who seems to be qualified. MPD did a separate investigation. As others noted, two month after the fact, it is quite difficult to get any evidence two months after the fact. In the school's communication, they said there had been no other bathroom incidents, contrary to reports here. The family is trying to acquire additional evidence. In my opinion, the school's main job, absent corroborating evidence, was to strengthen security protocols to ensure a similar incident could not happen again. Beyond that, the challenge remains that the victim said there was no identifying information for the perpetrators. It would be very difficult to sanction any student without hard evidence.

I think this is where it starts and stops.

Why not encourage anyone with information to reach out to MPD or investigators when hired? Why not encourage that now? Why not change safety procedures?

It seems like this is pretty much the only argument being made, that the school has an independent duty to “reach out to the school.” But per the article MPD asked them not to, and it is also well known that making blanket calls for information in this way can distort the results of an investigation. You are all really grasping at straws.

Where does anything say that?

From the school newspaper - "In the Feb. 13 email, Shaw said MPD asked school administrators to “refrain from broad communication to our community to avoid interference with their investigation.”

That might have been appropriate in the immediate aftermath when MPD thought it might find credible leads on its own. But that doesn't mean the school shouldn't have pushed back on that at any point in the year+ that followed. At some point, a community-wide email really should have gone out.

And what would that email have said? There was a report of a sexual assault, it was investigated by the police who could no find enough evidence to press charges or identify a suspect. The police asked us not to contact you until after they completed their investigation. Here is what we have done to try and prevent this from happening again.

If they say when it happened, people at the school would be able to figure out who the victim was because the kid was withdrawn from the school. This would violate the victims privacy.

If they say that the perpetrators were two students people will freak out wanting to know who they are and why they have not been removed. If they don't say it was other students then people freak out about people being on campus who shouldn't be, which wasn't the case.

Sending out an email only adds confusing and questions without being able to point to anything that solves the situation.

It appears the family is not worried about protecting the victims privacy, I would guess the entire school knows who he is now. That sucks for the kid because there is 0 chance that his identity doesn't get further leaked through the people who know the school and families at the school. The likelihood that new evidence is brought forward now is slim to none. Anyone who knew anything should have come forward long before this. If they didn't come forward with evidence then, what makes you think they would come forward now? Honestly, it feels like the family wants to hurt GDS in whatever way that they can and this was the best that they could do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

The parents said the police said that the claim was credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

What makes you think that a family or kid who knows something would come forward now because it went public when they didn’t come forward earlier? So now they know that they are supposed to report that they have information about a crime but they didn’t know that before it was made public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, GDS tuition is paying this company? I am in shock. https://tmusallc.com/investigation-consulting-services/
Is this true?


Who We Are:
Investigators and analysts who discreetly manage the most demanding cases. We are skilled at locating hidden assets, identifying online threats, and exposing fraud. Our staff has roots in law enforcement, investigative journalism, forensic accounting, and intelligence. All are thorough and results-driven.

What We Do:
Customize investigations to meet the needs of our clients: individuals to multinationals, solo practitioners to corporate law firms, startups to leaders in finance, philanthropy, entertainment, tech, higher education, public health, and art.

Forensic accounting to assist individuals, government agencies, and business entities and corporations uncover financial irregularities and ensure overall compliance.

Deliver timely, reliable, and admissible intelligence.

Vet job candidates and avoid hiring mistakes by providing context and background.

Pair our rigorous desktop research with human source intelligence and analysis to help clients mitgate risk and make better business decisions.

Locate and interview witnesses and conduct background checks for deposition preparation.

Offer a range of strategic and crisis consulting services that assess the safety of travel destinations and neutralize adverse media coverage.

Monitor social media and the dark web for reputational and physical threats and create online content to lessen the impact of negative posts.

The person hired was a woman. She "has conducted and managed hundreds of high-stakes and sensitive investigations involving sexual misconduct, harassment, discrimination, domestic violence, stalking, hazing, bullying, retaliation, and other misconduct. Julie is regularly called on to consult in matters across a wide range of institutions and organizations, including K–12 schools, colleges and universities, museums, sports organizations, nonprofits, and corporations, both in the U.S. and internationally. She also develops tailored policies and protocols and provides one-on-one and group training to help clients respond to misconduct with care, compliance, and clarity."

She "began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office, where she prosecuted homicide and felony cases from investigation through trial. She gained extensive experience as a member of the Sex Crimes and Domestic Violence Units and served in the Appeals Bureau, briefing and arguing cases before the Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and the New York Court of Appeals. "

GDS hired an independent investigator who seems to be qualified. MPD did a separate investigation. As others noted, two month after the fact, it is quite difficult to get any evidence two months after the fact. In the school's communication, they said there had been no other bathroom incidents, contrary to reports here. The family is trying to acquire additional evidence. In my opinion, the school's main job, absent corroborating evidence, was to strengthen security protocols to ensure a similar incident could not happen again. Beyond that, the challenge remains that the victim said there was no identifying information for the perpetrators. It would be very difficult to sanction any student without hard evidence.

I think this is where it starts and stops.

Why not encourage anyone with information to reach out to MPD or investigators when hired? Why not encourage that now? Why not change safety procedures?

It seems like this is pretty much the only argument being made, that the school has an independent duty to “reach out to the school.” But per the article MPD asked them not to, and it is also well known that making blanket calls for information in this way can distort the results of an investigation. You are all really grasping at straws.

Where does anything say that?

From the school newspaper - "In the Feb. 13 email, Shaw said MPD asked school administrators to “refrain from broad communication to our community to avoid interference with their investigation.”

That might have been appropriate in the immediate aftermath when MPD thought it might find credible leads on its own. But that doesn't mean the school shouldn't have pushed back on that at any point in the year+ that followed. At some point, a community-wide email really should have gone out.

And what would that email have said? There was a report of a sexual assault, it was investigated by the police who could no find enough evidence to press charges or identify a suspect. The police asked us not to contact you until after they completed their investigation. Here is what we have done to try and prevent this from happening again.

If they say when it happened, people at the school would be able to figure out who the victim was because the kid was withdrawn from the school. This would violate the victims privacy.

If they say that the perpetrators were two students people will freak out wanting to know who they are and why they have not been removed. If they don't say it was other students then people freak out about people being on campus who shouldn't be, which wasn't the case.

Sending out an email only adds confusing and questions without being able to point to anything that solves the situation.

It appears the family is not worried about protecting the victims privacy, I would guess the entire school knows who he is now. That sucks for the kid because there is 0 chance that his identity doesn't get further leaked through the people who know the school and families at the school. The likelihood that new evidence is brought forward now is slim to none. Anyone who knew anything should have come forward long before this. If they didn't come forward with evidence then, what makes you think they would come forward now? Honestly, it feels like the family wants to hurt GDS in whatever way that they can and this was the best that they could do.

Suggesting that the email sent by the Russel was about "protecting the victims" privacy is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it about GDS if the police said no credible evidence? I am confused.

The police said the claim WAS credible but that they didn't have enough evidence to find the perpetrators. That's exactly why the family is hoping the community can help -- someone knows something.

GDS has not been at all helpful in gathering more information, and in fact is doing everything they can to keep people from sharing what they know.

The parents said the police said that the claim was credible.

Exactly.