Anonymous wrote:

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.

My heart goes out to the victim. The school and the T&M social media consultants are using classic DARVO for containment. Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.

For all the self congratulatory advising other schools on consent culture, GDS should be ashamed. That they have not disavowed the vendor with Epstein ties also speaks volumes.

So the Epstein firm has a report that the school won't share with the family?

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.

My heart goes out to the victim. The school and the T&M social media consultants are using classic DARVO for containment. Deny, attack, reverse victim and offender.

For all the self congratulatory advising other schools on consent culture, GDS should be ashamed. That they have not disavowed the vendor with Epstein ties also speaks volumes.

Schools have a duty to report. Not a duty to investigate. No school administrator is trained to investigate crimes. They called the police, they called CPS (required by law to report any allegations of such), hired an investigator, reviewed safety measures and adjusted to improve. The school provided supports for this family. What more could they do? If they knew who did this, they would kick that kid(s) out immediately. I'm confused why everyone is saying the school didn't do the right thing when the allegations were shared with them. No one ignored the allegations or didn't believe them. They did what a school is supposed to do when something like this is brought to them. Russell does not handle the day to day life at the school. He's not in charge of safety! He hires people for that. Why is everyone blaming Russell? He probably didn't even know the kid. He isn't involved in GDS day to day life.

I feel very sad for this family and really hope they find who did this to their child. It's heartbreaking. I am curious how an 11 year old hides something like this for 3 months from their parents. Did the parents not notice anything was going on with their son? I would guess there was a lot of school refusal, fear and withdrawing from activities. I'm surprised they didn't realize earlier. I'm very sad for the child and their family. May their email to the community help them find answers. Their bravery to come forward made a difference for other students. It opened up dialogue, increased school safety measures, and for that, I'm thankful. I'm just sorry it took something so terrible to happen to their son for that all to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

Because it often is. The Catholic Church behaved the same way.

Lazy comparison. The Catholic Church knew for certain that it had many sexual offenders in churches all over the world. Rather than deal with the head one, they played musical chairs with parishes to shuffle the decks. As such, hundreds of thousands of kids were abused even after specific priests had been identified as predators. The Church chose this rather than to deal with the nightmare that it is still facing.

There is no comparison to what is happening in the GDS situation.

It is a fair comparison, actually. Another cover up.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

Because it often is. The Catholic Church behaved the same way.

GDS is not the Catholic Church, and child abuse exists in all types of religion not just the Catholic Church.

You are not helping yourself. You are just making GDS look even more guilty.

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

Because it often is. The Catholic Church behaved the same way.

Lazy comparison. The Catholic Church knew for certain that it had many sexual offenders in churches all over the world. Rather than deal with the head one, they played musical chairs with parishes to shuffle the decks. As such, hundreds of thousands of kids were abused even after specific priests had been identified as predators. The Church chose this rather than to deal with the nightmare that it is still facing.

There is no comparison to what is happening in the GDS situation.

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

Because it often is. The Catholic Church behaved the same way.

GDS is not the Catholic Church, and child abuse exists in all types of religion not just the Catholic Church.

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

Because it often is. The Catholic Church behaved the same way.

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

+1

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.

That’s not true at all. It gives them an opportunity to add additional layers of safeguard. But clearly anything the school did will be construed to be an admission of guilt to y’all.

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.

Totally disagree. Just because the investigation found nothing, there is nothing wrong with saying, in the course of reviewing our approaches, we found room for improvement and we made them. That doesn't say anything about the allegations at all.

The allegations were credible, there was nothing to investigate because so much time had passed, and the school took it seriously enough to hire a cover-up company and take precautions to prevent repeat sexual assaults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We don't need to fight about this but GDS would need to take those same measures even if the complaint was not credible. The complaint itself, regardless of efficacy, put them on notice from a liability perspective.

Not true at all. If it wasn’t credible, they could have just dismissed it without taking these additional measures.

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.

Totally disagree. Just because the investigation found nothing, there is nothing wrong with saying, in the course of reviewing our approaches, we found room for improvement and we made them. That doesn't say anything about the allegations at all.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We don't need to fight about this but GDS would need to take those same measures even if the complaint was not credible. The complaint itself, regardless of efficacy, put them on notice from a liability perspective.

Sad that in the 21st century, rape can still be a crime committed with impunity. I would have expected a well-resourced school to have safeguards in place to prevent this, or at minimum to state clearly that it did not occur. Instead, those safeguards do not appear to be in place, and GDS cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the rape never happened.