This is s case of sweeping under the carpet Deny, deny, deny --and demand evidence that the victim could not provide.

No, it's actually not like that at all.

Anonymous wrote:Why is it necessary for the GDS apologists here to smear the victim and his family?? This thread is such a disturbing read!

Alleged victim

Anonymous wrote:This isn't a crime for gds to themselves investigate or to determine who gets questioned. Administrators are not private investigators. They don't know how to ask questions that can tease out if a kid has been coached, is lying, etc. investigators do. Trust me, anyone MPD wanted to question, they did. GDS called MPD, CPS and a private firm. They did what they were supposed to do.

A private firm with Epstein ties where the boss of the "investigator" is sexting with ladies that don't want to sext with him. This is like OJ investigating the Nicole Brown Simpson murder.

This isn't a crime for gds to themselves investigate or to determine who gets questioned. Administrators are not private investigators. They don't know how to ask questions that can tease out if a kid has been coached, is lying, etc. investigators do. Trust me, anyone MPD wanted to question, they did. GDS called MPD, CPS and a private firm. They did what they were supposed to do.

Anonymous wrote:You have no idea what resources MPD assigned to the investigation and you have no idea if they stopped at "obvious" leads.

It could certainly be that a thorough investigation yielded zero evidence, even though that doesn't fit with the cover-up narrative.

You are correct. That could be true and such a scenario would easily be shown in the third party non-priveleged report they commissioned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have no idea what resources MPD assigned to the investigation and you have no idea if they stopped at "obvious" leads.

It could certainly be that a thorough investigation yielded zero evidence, even though that doesn't fit with the cover-up narrative.

Why would GDS cover this up? There is no incentive to keep students who are rapists. GDS has removed students for far lesser deeds.

GDS has a huge incentive to cover this up. Especially because, as you keep pointing out, the odds of convicting any alleged assailants in this case are extremely low.

But let's flip your question around. What incentive would GDS have, assuming they made a good faith effort to investigate, to not share any details with the family?

Anonymous wrote:You have no idea what resources MPD assigned to the investigation and you have no idea if they stopped at "obvious" leads.

It could certainly be that a thorough investigation yielded zero evidence, even though that doesn't fit with the cover-up narrative.

Why would GDS cover this up? There is no incentive to keep students who are rapists. GDS has removed students for far lesser deeds.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe the police didn’t investigate the claim. Who cares what GdS consultants find. I’d want to know what law enforcement professionals determined.

MPD did investigate and found no credible leads. This is what happens when a crime is reported two months after the fact with no evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony, which had no identifying details about the perpetrators.

You have no idea what resources MPD assigned to the investigation and you have no idea if they stopped at "obvious" leads.

It could certainly be that a thorough investigation yielded zero evidence, even though that doesn't fit with the cover-up narrative.

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at a different school. There was a large sexual assault investigation this past decade. The independent investigation resulted in a report that was made public. The school tried to be as transparent as possible, describing the investigation, their findings, and conclusions. This is the correct way to handle these situations. It was clear mistakes were made and the school described the steps it has taken to address them.

I cannot imagine being okay with the secrecy at GDS.

Hard to compare without details. For example, at your school, was there a criminal trial and was the perpetrator an adult? If so, that suggests that there was sufficient evidence for police to pursue a criminal investigation.

In the case of GDS, we have the testimony of a minor who could provide zero identifying details except that the alleged perpetrators were presumably(?) a little older and that the assault was committed in a 5-minute window between classes in a school bathroom. The incident was reported at least two months after the date of the assault. Police and an independent investigator could provide no credible leads.

I do wonder if the victim's family is consulting their attorney about this public disclosure, and what advice the attorney is giving. Their attorney should have told the victim's family that investigative reports are not shared, and that only parts are shared as part the discovery process in the event of a trial.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe the police didn’t investigate the claim. Who cares what GdS consultants find. I’d want to know what law enforcement professionals determined.

MPD had no obvious leads and is under staffed / under funded. They moved onto the next case. This isn’t some sort of crime show drama.

I can’t believe the police didn’t investigate the claim. Who cares what GdS consultants find. I’d want to know what law enforcement professionals determined.

My kids are at a different school. There was a large sexual assault investigation this past decade. The independent investigation resulted in a report that was made public. The school tried to be as transparent as possible, describing the investigation, their findings, and conclusions. This is the correct way to handle these situations. It was clear mistakes were made and the school described the steps it has taken to address them.

I cannot imagine being okay with the secrecy at GDS.

Anyone here remember in 2021 when GDS implemented an anonymous bias reporting form to the high schoolers, staff etc. It was a way for people to turn in others in the community.

When they want to do things (however stupid those things are like they were in the great awokening at GDS and in many parts of our society), they do those things.

Here - with this young child and his family- they did not want to do a damn thing other than protect the core and their reputation.

What do I mean specifically - they could have in 2025 sent a notice when the "investigation" was completed that they had been made aware of this situation, had investigated, found nothing and made changes to security cameras etc as part of an enhanced security posture. And they could have asked members of the community to step forward if they had info. They did not

They did not do that and it makes them look really bad now in clean up/sweep under rug mode.

But they have no problem standing up anonymous bias reporting tools to feed their BS woke-ism.

This is why Russell is a bad leader and will leave with a stain on his legacy. In my personal interactions with him on important topics, he often would say things akin to "my teachers would kill me if i did x or y" in which x or y would be critical to education of the students

That's not a leader. That's a dude who follows.

And lack of good leadership is endemic in this K12 world sadly. Not where the most talaneted managers go. Though for $1m a year of comp, you would think a school like GDS could do a bit better than a guy who gives great speeches but is afraid of his own shadow.

So where are we now? No where sadly. He will end up running some big think tank someday and nothing at all will happen.

Shameful handling and messaging.