Anonymous wrote:We can assume that the family thought the school would investigate in good faith and eventually concluded the opposite, leading to the email. ./

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t disclose more than the family themselves chose to send on a massive, essentially public email, right?

Yes. Which the publicly available school newspaper then covered. Along with the large HOS meeting with students.

It seems likely that the investigation was truncated, at best, and the school is trying to keep that information hidden. That they have not disavowed T&M and hired another vendor is surprising to me. Years of annual conferences on “consent culture” and they seem to be trying to brazen out a silencing and containment strategy. Given the school history it’s understandable that the family expected an investigation conducted in good faith and by parties who were not fixers for Jeffery Epstein. At this point one has to wonder if students and faculty were even questioned by T&M. GDS and their handling has now become the story. Ties should be cut with T&M. They do not merit any veneer of respectability in this context.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t disclose more than the family themselves chose to send on a massive, essentially public email, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And exactly how would you propose that these details be released in a way that complies with privacy standards?

I don't think most people understand how privacy rights work. A private school can later be sued even if a parent wants sensitive information disclosed. I am surprised they even allowed this article to be published with details about the student such as the student withdrew from the school last winter and that they were assaulted. Since students rarely leaves in the winter the student is identifiable not only to the school community, but now to members of his new school community. Even if a parent waives confidentiality for their child, that pre-teen / teen still has privacy rights a parent can't waive. Schools are expected to protect minor identities in sensitive cases, and if they don't they can later be sued.

Parents can't force a school to issue a statement in cases were privacy has to be protected. Schools also can't give police a list of names of all the boys in the school, all the boys who had classes in that hallway, or all the boys who had discipline issues. The school would get sued by those parents. Police can't go on a fishing expedition. Private schools don't provide names to police without a subpoena, court order, or warrant. If they did they could be sued by those parents. Affluent parents aren't letting their kids be interviewed by police.

This really is a terrible situation for the boy and his family but publicizing it this way can be harmful in the years to come for the victim. I think this post should be removed, not because I have anything to do with GDS, but because it discloses way too much information about the victim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And exactly how would you propose that these details be released in a way that complies with privacy standards?

I don't think most people understand how privacy rights work. A private school can later be sued even if a parent wants sensitive information disclosed. I am surprised they even allowed this article to be published with details about the student such as the student withdrew from the school last winter and that they were assaulted. Since students rarely leaves in the winter the student is identifiable not only to the school community, but now to members of his new school community. Even if a parent waives confidentiality for their child, that pre-teen / teen still has privacy rights a parent can't waive. Schools are expected to protect minor identities in sensitive cases, and if they don't they can later be sued.

Parents can't force a school to issue a statement in cases were privacy has to be protected. Schools also can't give police a list of names of all the boys in the school, all the boys who had classes in that hallway, or all the boys who had discipline issues. The school would get sued by those parents. Police can't go on a fishing expedition. Private schools don't provide names to police without a subpoena, court order, or warrant. If they did they could be sued by those parents. Affluent parents aren't letting their kids be interviewed by police.

This really is a terrible situation for the boy and his family but publicizing it this way can be harmful in the years to come for the victim. I think this post should be removed, not because I have anything to do with GDS, but because it discloses way too much information about the victim.

Anonymous wrote:And exactly how would you propose that these details be released in a way that complies with privacy standards?

Anonymous wrote:Wow! It looks like GDS has removed the ability to comment on social media. They're in containment mode. Talk with other parents. Let the know what you think.

Anonymous wrote:

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?