GDS Student Newspaper posts about the horrible incident

[Anonymous]

^were

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is "they" in terms of releasing the details? The only person who could do that would be the family, who has chosen (and understandably so) not to do that. It's not the schools place nor the MPD to release anything without consent of the family.

In the family's email, dd they say that there was no investigation? I didn't read that. I can't imagine how I would react so I'm definitely not judging them for the scorched earth email, but it was not the most formal of information releases. They could have sent an email that outlined the parts of the investigation that supported their child's claims, forcing the MPD and GDS to respond (or not respond). In this case, they simply said that the MPD found the claim credible but that nothing more was actioned due to lack of evidence. If they had more compelling details, they presumably would have shared them.

The whole story is horrible, but the lack of evidence doesn't make the school guilty of a cover-up nor the MPD incompetent.

Public records laws exist. The school can easily get this information

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they did what they were capable of doing given the absence of evidence. They probably looked for teachers who interacted with the victim after the incident to see how they seemed. The presumably looked to see if there was surveillance footage. They probably talked to the kid to see if he could provide any identifiable characteristics about his alleged attackers.

That still constitutes an investigation even if the conclusion was that there was nothing there.

If they did that then that would be great. However, it's all speculation and assumptions. The only thing we know is that GDS has declined to share any theoeetical report with the family.

The family would have received the police report. Presumably their attorney would have done this for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there has god forbid been another incident like this at school in the time GDS sat on this for a year and did nothing, this will open up GDS to great liability including criminal liability.

This is why they should have notified the community in 2025 when this came to light - even to say we have investigated a troubling charge and not found anything. They refused to even do that.....

This is precisely why I am disinclined to believe that GDS was negligent I its response, as others assert. GDS would be litigated to its death if the perpetrators committed another assault. There is no incentive to believe that GDS would sweep an incident this serious under the rug. Also as one PP noted I cannot believe that the rumor mill has not spit out the names of the perpetrators. GDS is a small community and the fact that none of the middle schoolers seem to know anything is telling. GDS parents love gossip, and there has been nothing about the perpetrators that is known.
I do believe that this poor child suffered something terrible, but I do wonder if the actual facts of this child’s abuse are being obscured by this child out of fear.

+1 If you were actually a parent at the school when this supposedly was reported, you would know that the family did share it with plenty of families, and based on who it was and how they handled it alone you would know enough to trust that the school did everything right here. The people on here claiming they know anything are sadly liars with nothing better to do with their free time.

I am PP and am a parent of two GDS students, including one in the MS. I feel your anger, frustration, and pain. I really do. I also think that GDS is not negligent here. By no means do I think that the school and the board are perfect, or even great, but in this case I believe the school acted appropriately. I also believe that the child was abused, but not by two GDS middle schoolers. There is just too much that does not make sense here.

Were you aware of this incident before the email went out?

No. My child in the MS was completely unaware of this incident, as were her friends. They were shocked to learn of it. As best as I can gather - and this is a small sample size, for sure - the only parents who knew about the incident heard about it from the victim's parent(s). As one of the PPs noted, there was nothing in the MS gossip mill about this.

[Anonymous]

Have really been thinking about this and the schools two emails last week...

The security upgrades he cited in the second email actually undermine the "unsubstantiated" narrative the school has.

If the investigation truly found nothing, why did GDS subsequently increase cameras, extend recording retention periods, review supervision patterns, and hire an outside security consultant?

Schools don't spend that money and effort in response to allegations they genuinely believe have no basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they did what they were capable of doing given the absence of evidence. They probably looked for teachers who interacted with the victim after the incident to see how they seemed. The presumably looked to see if there was surveillance footage. They probably talked to the kid to see if he could provide any identifiable characteristics about his alleged attackers.

That still constitutes an investigation even if the conclusion was that there was nothing there.

If they did that then that would be great. However, it's all speculation and assumptions. The only thing we know is that GDS has declined to share any theoeetical report with the family.

The family would have received the police report. Presumably their attorney would have done this for them.

Not necessarily. The real police report, the one potentially with details in it, is only available through a legal process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have really been thinking about this and the schools two emails last week...

The security upgrades he cited in the second email actually undermine the "unsubstantiated" narrative the school has.

If the investigation truly found nothing, why did GDS subsequently increase cameras, extend recording retention periods, review supervision patterns, and hire an outside security consultant?

Schools don't spend that money and effort in response to allegations they genuinely believe have no basis.

Liability protection. That's what T&M was hired for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have really been thinking about this and the schools two emails last week...

The security upgrades he cited in the second email actually undermine the "unsubstantiated" narrative the school has.

If the investigation truly found nothing, why did GDS subsequently increase cameras, extend recording retention periods, review supervision patterns, and hire an outside security consultant?

Schools don't spend that money and effort in response to allegations they genuinely believe have no basis.

Liability protection. That's what T&M was hired for.

Sounds pretty credible to me, based on the response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is "they" in terms of releasing the details? The only person who could do that would be the family, who has chosen (and understandably so) not to do that. It's not the schools place nor the MPD to release anything without consent of the family.

In the family's email, dd they say that there was no investigation? I didn't read that. I can't imagine how I would react so I'm definitely not judging them for the scorched earth email, but it was not the most formal of information releases. They could have sent an email that outlined the parts of the investigation that supported their child's claims, forcing the MPD and GDS to respond (or not respond). In this case, they simply said that the MPD found the claim credible but that nothing more was actioned due to lack of evidence. If they had more compelling details, they presumably would have shared them.

The whole story is horrible, but the lack of evidence doesn't make the school guilty of a cover-up nor the MPD incompetent.

Public records laws exist. The school can easily get this information

Not easily. They can get a copy of the detailed police report if they sue but and put sustained effort into it. But even then there's a lot less in those reports than one would think.

The most detailed report would theoretically be from T&M, which coincidentally would have been liasoning with the police, and that report is entirely under the school's control. According to the family's email, GDS has refused to share it with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have really been thinking about this and the schools two emails last week...

The security upgrades he cited in the second email actually undermine the "unsubstantiated" narrative the school has.

If the investigation truly found nothing, why did GDS subsequently increase cameras, extend recording retention periods, review supervision patterns, and hire an outside security consultant?

Schools don't spend that money and effort in response to allegations they genuinely believe have no basis.

Liability protection. That's what T&M was hired for.

Sounds pretty credible to me, based on the response.

Not necessarily. I'm sympathetic to the family but those measures were about potential future incidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have really been thinking about this and the schools two emails last week...

The security upgrades he cited in the second email actually undermine the "unsubstantiated" narrative the school has.

If the investigation truly found nothing, why did GDS subsequently increase cameras, extend recording retention periods, review supervision patterns, and hire an outside security consultant?

Schools don't spend that money and effort in response to allegations they genuinely believe have no basis.

Liability protection. That's what T&M was hired for.

Sounds pretty credible to me, based on the response.

Not necessarily. I'm sympathetic to the family but those measures were about potential future incidents.

Obviously for future incidents. They would not have taken these measures if the victim wasn’t credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is "they" in terms of releasing the details? The only person who could do that would be the family, who has chosen (and understandably so) not to do that. It's not the schools place nor the MPD to release anything without consent of the family.

In the family's email, dd they say that there was no investigation? I didn't read that. I can't imagine how I would react so I'm definitely not judging them for the scorched earth email, but it was not the most formal of information releases. They could have sent an email that outlined the parts of the investigation that supported their child's claims, forcing the MPD and GDS to respond (or not respond). In this case, they simply said that the MPD found the claim credible but that nothing more was actioned due to lack of evidence. If they had more compelling details, they presumably would have shared them.

The whole story is horrible, but the lack of evidence doesn't make the school guilty of a cover-up nor the MPD incompetent.

Public records laws exist. The school can easily get this information

Not easily. They can get a copy of the detailed police report if they sue but and put sustained effort into it. But even then there's a lot less in those reports than one would think.

The most detailed report would theoretically be from T&M, which coincidentally would have been liasoning with the police, and that report is entirely under the school's control. According to the family's email, GDS has refused to share it with them.

T&M is covering this up, exactly what they were paid to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they did what they were capable of doing given the absence of evidence. They probably looked for teachers who interacted with the victim after the incident to see how they seemed. The presumably looked to see if there was surveillance footage. They probably talked to the kid to see if he could provide any identifiable characteristics about his alleged attackers.

That still constitutes an investigation even if the conclusion was that there was nothing there.

If they did that then that would be great. However, it's all speculation and assumptions. The only thing we know is that GDS has declined to share any theoeetical report with the family.

The family would have received the police report. Presumably their attorney would have done this for them.

Not necessarily. The real police report, the one potentially with details in it, is only available through a legal process.

Wrong. The family's email indicates that only the independent investigator's report was not share. The family email seems to indicate that they have information from the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is "they" in terms of releasing the details? The only person who could do that would be the family, who has chosen (and understandably so) not to do that. It's not the schools place nor the MPD to release anything without consent of the family.

In the family's email, dd they say that there was no investigation? I didn't read that. I can't imagine how I would react so I'm definitely not judging them for the scorched earth email, but it was not the most formal of information releases. They could have sent an email that outlined the parts of the investigation that supported their child's claims, forcing the MPD and GDS to respond (or not respond). In this case, they simply said that the MPD found the claim credible but that nothing more was actioned due to lack of evidence. If they had more compelling details, they presumably would have shared them.

The whole story is horrible, but the lack of evidence doesn't make the school guilty of a cover-up nor the MPD incompetent.

That is incorrect. The school is fully in charge of the T&M report. They were the client and there are no inherent privilege issues.

The family could have been more strategic but they seemed to have given the school the benefit of the doubt before sending their email. Which is ironic because the family got crapped on even though they did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they did what they were capable of doing given the absence of evidence. They probably looked for teachers who interacted with the victim after the incident to see how they seemed. The presumably looked to see if there was surveillance footage. They probably talked to the kid to see if he could provide any identifiable characteristics about his alleged attackers.

That still constitutes an investigation even if the conclusion was that there was nothing there.

If they did that then that would be great. However, it's all speculation and assumptions. The only thing we know is that GDS has declined to share any theoeetical report with the family.

The family would have received the police report. Presumably their attorney would have done this for them.

Not necessarily. The real police report, the one potentially with details in it, is only available through a legal process.

Wrong. The family's email indicates that only the independent investigator's report was not share. The family email seems to indicate that they have information from the police.

Not wrong. There are two layers to these sorts of police reports. The easily accessible one says virtually nothing. The more detailed one, which might not even say anything, requires a formal petition through the courts.