LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS

◄ 1 2 3 ... 42 43 44 ... 75 76 77 ► Go

Go to page...

10/21/2021 21:42

Subject: LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

Anonymous

In Scott Smith’s Motion to Recuse the Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney from the case, Bill Stanley stated:
“The Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney, Buta Biberaj, chose to handle the prosecution herself for these two misdemeanor charges [against Scott Smith at his original trial in the General District Court]. At the time of sentencing, Ms. Biberaj asked for an active jail sentence for the Defendant as part of his punishment,” apparently believing that Mr. Smith was a “domestic terrorist” who deserved jail time.
All the while, the Commonwealth’s Attorney was simultaneously prosecuting the student who raped Smith’s daughter at a Loudoun County High School. But, “despite the horrific assault upon the Defendant’s daughter, Biberaj permitted the assailant to be released from juvenile detention as the case proceeded…. As Biberaj stated publicly: ‘He appeared to be a good candidate to be put on electronic monitoring based on the information that was provided.’ Subsequent to the Defendant’s daughter’s assailant being released, it is alleged that he abducted and sexually assaulted another female student at another Loudoun County public school. This subsequent sexual assault has garnered adverse publicity for the Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney. But while prosecuting Scott Smith’s daughter’s case, “Biberaj even suggested that there were two sides to the assault: ‘[W]e know what sometimes is reported initially is not then what the end result of all the facts are.’ This startling quote appears to be an intentional attempt to dimmish the credibility of the Defendant’s daughter.” Additionally, “Biberaj was also a member of “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun,” a closed Facebook group where members doxxed opponents of the school division’s work to improve racial” and LBTQ/transgender equity.
The motion further stated: “Biberaj cannot possibly be impartial in prosecuting the Defendant’s appeal, since she is directly responsible for the release of the Defendant’s daughter’s assailant and has faced significant criticism for the decision, since the assailant allegedly sexually assaulted another young lady at another school after his release. The oddity of the top prosecutor at a Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office personally prosecuting a misdemeanor did not go unnoticed, as it was unusual for the elected Commonwealth’s Attorney to handle a misdemeanor charge in General District Court, but for the fact that the charges against Mr. Smith had gained notoriety and had been falsely equated as an act of “domestic terrorism.”
The recusal motion concluded: “It is reasonable to believe that some of Biberaj’s biases and predispositions would be present in [Scott Smith’s criminal case] since her involvement in the release of the Defendant’s daughter’s assailant only came to light after the assault garnered nationwide media attention. Allowing Biberaj to prosecute the Defendant for charges that come as a direct result to the sexual assault would be manifestly unjust to the Defendant and inhibit his right to a fair trial.”