Why was the thread on the sexual assault at a Loudoun county school deleted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It'll be wild if it does come out that the Broad Run (recent) assailant is the same as in the Stone Bridge (old-Mr. Smith's daughter) incident.

I'm hesitant to believe it because in the recent article about the Broad Run assault, the paper identifies the assailant as male. In the Stone Bridge incident, the assailant is (and always has been) identified as gender-fluid and transgender.

If it does come out that the first assault occurred, it will be beyond tragic. If, indeed, that attacker went on to undertake another attack, it will be truly horrifying. But, beyond the question of gender, why has the Sheriff's office confirmed one arrest but not the other? The first alleged assault was investigated for 2 months, the second for just a couple of days.

From the fox news article - what do you interpret “investigation…prior to arrest” and “pending court proceedings” to mean?

"We can confirm a May 28, 2021 case that involved a thorough 2-month-long investigation that was conducted to determine the facts of the case prior to arrest," the sheriff’s office told Fox News. "This case is still pending court proceedings. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office is not able to provide any documents that pertain to a pending case." The sheriff's office confirmed that the case involved sexual assault.

This seems to be reliable evidence that some assault did occur on May 28, as alleged.

If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It'll be wild if it does come out that the Broad Run (recent) assailant is the same as in the Stone Bridge (old-Mr. Smith's daughter) incident.

I'm hesitant to believe it because in the recent article about the Broad Run assault, the paper identifies the assailant as male. In the Stone Bridge incident, the assailant is (and always has been) identified as gender-fluid and transgender.

If it does come out that the first assault occurred, it will be beyond tragic. If, indeed, that attacker went on to undertake another attack, it will be truly horrifying. But, beyond the question of gender, why has the Sheriff's office confirmed one arrest but not the other? The first alleged assault was investigated for 2 months, the second for just a couple of days.

From the fox news article - what do you interpret “investigation…prior to arrest” and “pending court proceedings” to mean?

"We can confirm a May 28, 2021 case that involved a thorough 2-month-long investigation that was conducted to determine the facts of the case prior to arrest," the sheriff’s office told Fox News. "This case is still pending court proceedings. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office is not able to provide any documents that pertain to a pending case." The sheriff's office confirmed that the case involved sexual assault.

I am not sure how to interpret that. In the Broad Run case, the Sheriff's office had no problem saying, "A teenager from Ashburn has been charged with sexual battery and abduction of a fellow student..." That attack occurred on Oct. 6. and the notice was posted on Oct. 7. Why so mum with regard to the alleged Stone Bridge assault that is said to have occurred all the way back in May?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff what you are doing here is borderline victim shaming. A girl was brutally raped in the bathroom on school property and the school system (and media) made the father of this girl look like a jackass in front of the entire nation. This alone is horrifying. If the second part is true that the same person was involved in a second attack parents should be aware that the school system is not protecting children and we should all be outraged.

Nothing is proven. The father has made himself look like a "jackass". There has been no "victim shaming". That is 100% ridiculous.

Jeff is correct to do this. This story is a right-wing try to get Youngkin in office. Nothing more people move along.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It'll be wild if it does come out that the Broad Run (recent) assailant is the same as in the Stone Bridge (old-Mr. Smith's daughter) incident.

I'm hesitant to believe it because in the recent article about the Broad Run assault, the paper identifies the assailant as male. In the Stone Bridge incident, the assailant is (and always has been) identified as gender-fluid and transgender.

If it does come out that the first assault occurred, it will be beyond tragic. If, indeed, that attacker went on to undertake another attack, it will be truly horrifying. But, beyond the question of gender, why has the Sheriff's office confirmed one arrest but not the other? The first alleged assault was investigated for 2 months, the second for just a couple of days.

From the fox news article - what do you interpret “investigation…prior to arrest” and “pending court proceedings” to mean?

"We can confirm a May 28, 2021 case that involved a thorough 2-month-long investigation that was conducted to determine the facts of the case prior to arrest," the sheriff’s office told Fox News. "This case is still pending court proceedings. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office is not able to provide any documents that pertain to a pending case." The sheriff's office confirmed that the case involved sexual assault.

I am not sure how to interpret that. In the Broad Run case, the Sheriff's office had no problem saying, "A teenager from Ashburn has been charged with sexual battery and abduction of a fellow student..." That attack occurred on Oct. 6. and the notice was posted on Oct. 7. Why so mum with regard to the alleged Stone Bridge assault that is said to have occurred all the way back in May?

Because it was not handled internally - the police were called in the second case.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

I don't have a political agenda here. The father may be lying to support his agenda; I really don't know. What I do know, however, is that disbelieving a victim because you don't approve of her or family's politics sends a dangerous message to victims. If you put aside the bathroom policies, it is highly unlikely that this is man is lying about his daughter being a victim of a sexual assault at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

I don't have a political agenda here. The father may be lying to support his agenda; I really don't know. What I do know, however, is that disbelieving a victim because you don't approve of her or family's politics sends a dangerous message to victims. If you put aside the bathroom policies, it is highly unlikely that this is man is lying about his daughter being a victim of a sexual assault at school.

In addition, the reason there is an investigation in the first case is because the school did not notify the police. They chose to handle it internally, move the student, and put another girl in his path. When the second offense occurred, police were brought in immediately, probably because they did not appreciate being handed this student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

I don't have a political agenda here. The father may be lying to support his agenda; I really don't know. What I do know, however, is that disbelieving a victim because you don't approve of her or family's politics sends a dangerous message to victims. If you put aside the bathroom policies, it is highly unlikely that this is man is lying about his daughter being a victim of a sexual assault at school.

In addition, the reason there is an investigation in the first case is because the school did not notify the police. They chose to handle it internally, move the student, and put another girl in his path. When the second offense occurred, police were brought in immediately, probably because they did not appreciate being handed this student.

Fox News says the Sherriff’s office was involved with the investigation, so someone told the police:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/loudoun-county-pa...n-over-alleged-sexual-assaults

'"We can confirm a May 28, 2021 case that involved a thorough 2-month-long investigation that was conducted to determine the facts of the case prior to arrest," the sheriff’s office told Fox News. "This case is still pending court proceedings. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office is not able to provide any documents that pertain to a pending case." The sheriff's office confirmed that the case involved sexual assault.'

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

I don't have a political agenda here. The father may be lying to support his agenda; I really don't know. What I do know, however, is that disbelieving a victim because you don't approve of her or family's politics sends a dangerous message to victims. If you put aside the bathroom policies, it is highly unlikely that this is man is lying about his daughter being a victim of a sexual assault at school.

In addition, the reason there is an investigation in the first case is because the school did not notify the police. They chose to handle it internally, move the student, and put another girl in his path. When the second offense occurred, police were brought in immediately, probably because they did not appreciate being handed this student.

Most of what you have written is unconfirmed assumptions. I think it is better to stick to facts rather than guesses and interpretations.

[Anonymous]

So if the assault actually happened and the teenager is convicted in court will the media be able to verify the assault or do the records all remain sealed because it involves minors? According to one article I read the court date is this month but who knows if it’s true or not.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the father's daughter was sexually assaulted at school, all of you have certainly sent a message, loud and clear, that only certain victims have rights or are worth believing.

The Sheriff's office has publicly stated that a student was arrested for sexual battery at Broad Run High School yet you have shown no interest in discussing that case. Regardless of how things turn out, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in sexual assaults that do not fit your political agenda.

I don't have a political agenda here. The father may be lying to support his agenda; I really don't know. What I do know, however, is that disbelieving a victim because you don't approve of her or family's politics sends a dangerous message to victims. If you put aside the bathroom policies, it is highly unlikely that this is man is lying about his daughter being a victim of a sexual assault at school.

The girl in the first case has not released any public statement of which I am aware. Therefore, she has no word to doubt. I doubt the reporter and website from which the story originated. If the father and his lawyer have such a solid case, why couldn’t they get a more authoritative media outlet to run the story? Even Fox News would be better.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So if the assault actually happened and the teenager is convicted in court will the media be able to verify the assault or do the records all remain sealed because it involves minors? According to one article I read the court date is this month but who knows if it’s true or not.

Based on other cases with which I am familiar, the media will be able to report the conviction and sentence.

[jsteele]

Okay, I am reopening this thread because authoritative information about the two assaults is now available:

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/10/teen-charged-in-loudoun-co-school-groping-was-on-electronic-monitoring-for-earlier-charges/

A Loudoun County, Virginia, high school student who allegedly groped a girl at Broad Run High School last week was on electronic monitoring after being charged with sexually assaulting a young girl in a bathroom in an Ashburn high school in May.

It appears that my skepticism was unwarranted this time and Luke Rosiak and the Daily Wire were correct that the same individual was involved in two assaults. Some details reported by Rosiak remain unconfirmed and some have reasonable (if not necessarily acceptable) explanations. But, feel free to discuss.

[Anonymous]

What recourse can there be against LCPS and/or the school board? They lied (by omission) about the first incident, and then transferred the student to a different school.

Repulsive behavior to let a predator run loose in the school system.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What recourse can there be against LCPS and/or the school board? They lied (by omission) about the first incident, and then transferred the student to a different school.

Repulsive behavior to let a predator run loose in the school system.

Please start a thread in the VA Schools forum to discuss this aspect.