Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the article beyond that it occurred in the bathroom. No timing. No time of day. No pre or after event etc. So anyone making comments about "between" classes is either privy to information not reported or is making stuff up to limit their belief of the story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be inclined to believe a huge range of abuse and sexual assault stories in middle school, but this one seems very implausible.

1) That they were able to mask their identities. It's a small school. Did they change clothes?

2) I could see an SA happening as part of hazing or something like that, but then there's no way other students wouldn't have known about it on some level, if not the details

3) Even if I could stretch to believe one very clever, secretive, deviant child predator...two? Who found each other and planned this and managed to keep their mouths shut for years, including during an investigation?

I'm not saying nothing bad happened to this kid, and I want them to be supported, but I seriously doubt this tale.

I’m a parent and this is generally my thought. To add, this allegedly happened in a pretty well used bathroom during the short period between classes, that seems hard to pull off. And even if the kids were masked, basic characteristics, like gender, skin color, height, and build would narrow the possible perpetrators down to such a small number they could be easily identified.

It is also completely inappropriate to send an email to parents and students the way that this family did. The parents are clearly unhappy with the school, maybe for good reason or maybe they are insane.

If the school and police investigated this and did not find enough evidence to move forward, the school can’t and should not share anything about this with the community.

If some disturbed kid accused your child of something awful, of which there was no evidence, would you want the school to put that out on blast to the community just so that everyone had all the information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It appears this was meant to happen during a very time quick period -- a five minute class transition. Does this mean that the victim went straight to class after the incident? I am inclined to believe victims too and it would be beyond tragic to have such an incident take place. That said, there are some elements that have a Jussie Smollet quality to them -- but there is also a lot we don't know. For example, it would seem that the race of the perpetrators should have been identifiable even if faces were disguised. So that would immediately rule out some kids and rule in others, depending on that detail. The mask/masking suggests that this was premeditated. Were they going to do it to someone/anyone or was it the victim specifically targeted? Are there hallway cameras/footage? Or was the reporting too far after the incident? The letter from the parents was very sincere and they are clearly looking for help in corroborating.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CHILD_ 11 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly GDS wants to avoid any liability so it’s clear why are doing that .

If GDS really wanted to avoid liability, they would have expelled the students who present a real harm to other students. There's no reason for GDS to keep students who so violently assaulted another child. Even assuming that the alleged perpetrators are "connected" or have parents who are significant donors, the threat of future harm, especially knowing that the students have a record of assault, is so great that the risk to the school's reputation and the cost of a lawsuit would outweigh the benefits of keeping those students at GDS. (Not to mention GDS has enough wealthy and connected families that losing one or two would not be terribly detrimental to the school.) Security at the school is tight. No one enters without passing through two sets of doors and security (at least one of whom is recently retired MPD) at the front desk. The design of the grade-level floors is such that bathrooms are not hidden in some corridor; they are right off the hallway and surrounded by classrooms. People would see you enter and leave the bathroom. Perhaps the alleged student perpetrators were eventually counseled out. Who knows? But without sufficient evidence, the school is limited in its public response.
I feel horrible for the family and the distress that they are feeling. I am sure that something awful happened to their child, but it's not clear exactly what based upon the available corroborating evidence.
As for Russell, he's been a great HOS. Yes, there are some things that he could have handled differently, but none of the events that people like to bring up was "easy" (COVID, Oct. 7) and *any* response to those events would have been sure to piss off one contingent of the GDS regardless.

What if it didn't actually happen? How would you feel if your kid was expelled and accused of something horrific, but it turned out not to be true? Presumably, the accused have not done anything to cause problems since the alleged incident, so they have not presented a real harm to other students.

I'm not saying that it did or did not happen, but any sweeping action that assumes that the account is correct directly impacts those accused. While I believe people who have been exposed to trauma, I also believe that those who are accused of a crime have the right to be assumed innocent without evidence proving otherwise. It doesn't make it right or easy but it is our system. And no, I don't think that the threshold for a school to take action should be so low that they expel students without compelling evidence of guilt.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the school should have expelled the students without sufficient evidence. I'm saying that if the school did have evidence, the school would have expelled the students. As for the family's request to warn other GDS families, the question remains as to why. Is the family concerned that the alleged perpetrators are still at the school? What would warning GDS families accomplish exactly? What should kids be on alert for that is so unique to GDS that warrants a special warning about assault in the bathroom?

I wonder if the family is also hoping that someone else in the community knows something, and that's why they are spreading the word. If a major crime occurred, I'm sure the whole family will do anything they can to find out who did it and make sure they are punished.

Anonymous wrote:It appears this was meant to happen during a very time quick period -- a five minute class transition. Does this mean that the victim went straight to class after the incident? I am inclined to believe victims too and it would be beyond tragic to have such an incident take place. That said, there are some elements that have a Jussie Smollet quality to them -- but there is also a lot we don't know. For example, it would seem that the race of the perpetrators should have been identifiable even if faces were disguised. So that would immediately rule out some kids and rule in others, depending on that detail. The mask/masking suggests that this was premeditated. Were they going to do it to someone/anyone or was it the victim specifically targeted? Are there hallway cameras/footage? Or was the reporting too far after the incident? The letter from the parents was very sincere and they are clearly looking for help in corroborating.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think we should be discussing this as no one here knows the details.

A case like this could be 2 sick teens who raped a kid and it could also be an 11 yr old who was previously abused by a baby sitter or neighbor (and told no one) and is now making a scenario up about masked kids at school as he continues to processes the pain and fear. Crazier things have happened. I mean none of us know.
You are the parent who is suggesting that the victim was raped somewhere else (J) . wow

There is zero way of knowing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly GDS wants to avoid any liability so it’s clear why are doing that .

If GDS really wanted to avoid liability, they would have expelled the students who present a real harm to other students. There's no reason for GDS to keep students who so violently assaulted another child. Even assuming that the alleged perpetrators are "connected" or have parents who are significant donors, the threat of future harm, especially knowing that the students have a record of assault, is so great that the risk to the school's reputation and the cost of a lawsuit would outweigh the benefits of keeping those students at GDS. (Not to mention GDS has enough wealthy and connected families that losing one or two would not be terribly detrimental to the school.) Security at the school is tight. No one enters without passing through two sets of doors and security (at least one of whom is recently retired MPD) at the front desk. The design of the grade-level floors is such that bathrooms are not hidden in some corridor; they are right off the hallway and surrounded by classrooms. People would see you enter and leave the bathroom. Perhaps the alleged student perpetrators were eventually counseled out. Who knows? But without sufficient evidence, the school is limited in its public response.
I feel horrible for the family and the distress that they are feeling. I am sure that something awful happened to their child, but it's not clear exactly what based upon the available corroborating evidence.
As for Russell, he's been a great HOS. Yes, there are some things that he could have handled differently, but none of the events that people like to bring up was "easy" (COVID, Oct. 7) and *any* response to those events would have been sure to piss off one contingent of the GDS regardless.

What if it didn't actually happen? How would you feel if your kid was expelled and accused of something horrific, but it turned out not to be true? Presumably, the accused have not done anything to cause problems since the alleged incident, so they have not presented a real harm to other students.

I'm not saying that it did or did not happen, but any sweeping action that assumes that the account is correct directly impacts those accused. While I believe people who have been exposed to trauma, I also believe that those who are accused of a crime have the right to be assumed innocent without evidence proving otherwise. It doesn't make it right or easy but it is our system. And no, I don't think that the threshold for a school to take action should be so low that they expel students without compelling evidence of guilt.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the school should have expelled the students without sufficient evidence. I'm saying that if the school did have evidence, the school would have expelled the students. As for the family's request to warn other GDS families, the question remains as to why. Is the family concerned that the alleged perpetrators are still at the school? What would warning GDS families accomplish exactly? What should kids be on alert for that is so unique to GDS that warrants a special warning about assault in the bathroom?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly GDS wants to avoid any liability so it’s clear why are doing that .

If GDS really wanted to avoid liability, they would have expelled the students who present a real harm to other students. There's no reason for GDS to keep students who so violently assaulted another child. Even assuming that the alleged perpetrators are "connected" or have parents who are significant donors, the threat of future harm, especially knowing that the students have a record of assault, is so great that the risk to the school's reputation and the cost of a lawsuit would outweigh the benefits of keeping those students at GDS. (Not to mention GDS has enough wealthy and connected families that losing one or two would not be terribly detrimental to the school.) Security at the school is tight. No one enters without passing through two sets of doors and security (at least one of whom is recently retired MPD) at the front desk. The design of the grade-level floors is such that bathrooms are not hidden in some corridor; they are right off the hallway and surrounded by classrooms. People would see you enter and leave the bathroom. Perhaps the alleged student perpetrators were eventually counseled out. Who knows? But without sufficient evidence, the school is limited in its public response.
I feel horrible for the family and the distress that they are feeling. I am sure that something awful happened to their child, but it's not clear exactly what based upon the available corroborating evidence.
As for Russell, he's been a great HOS. Yes, there are some things that he could have handled differently, but none of the events that people like to bring up was "easy" (COVID, Oct. 7) and *any* response to those events would have been sure to piss off one contingent of the GDS regardless.

What if it didn't actually happen? How would you feel if your kid was expelled and accused of something horrific, but it turned out not to be true? Presumably, the accused have not done anything to cause problems since the alleged incident, so they have not presented a real harm to other students.

I'm not saying that it did or did not happen, but any sweeping action that assumes that the account is correct directly impacts those accused. While I believe people who have been exposed to trauma, I also believe that those who are accused of a crime have the right to be assumed innocent without evidence proving otherwise. It doesn't make it right or easy but it is our system. And no, I don't think that the threshold for a school to take action should be so low that they expel students without compelling evidence of guilt.

Anonymous wrote:There are not typically cameras in the bathrooms at schools. There are cameras in school hallways. Hone in on the month, week. Work with facts. And gross. Glad we are not applying here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly GDS wants to avoid any liability so it’s clear why are doing that .

If GDS really wanted to avoid liability, they would have expelled the students who present a real harm to other students. There's no reason for GDS to keep students who so violently assaulted another child. Even assuming that the alleged perpetrators are "connected" or have parents who are significant donors, the threat of future harm, especially knowing that the students have a record of assault, is so great that the risk to the school's reputation and the cost of a lawsuit would outweigh the benefits of keeping those students at GDS. (Not to mention GDS has enough wealthy and connected families that losing one or two would not be terribly detrimental to the school.) Security at the school is tight. No one enters without passing through two sets of doors and security (at least one of whom is recently retired MPD) at the front desk. The design of the grade-level floors is such that bathrooms are not hidden in some corridor; they are right off the hallway and surrounded by classrooms. People would see you enter and leave the bathroom. Perhaps the alleged student perpetrators were eventually counseled out. Who knows? But without sufficient evidence, the school is limited in its public response.
I feel horrible for the family and the distress that they are feeling. I am sure that something awful happened to their child, but it's not clear exactly what based upon the available corroborating evidence.
As for Russell, he's been a great HOS. Yes, there are some things that he could have handled differently, but none of the events that people like to bring up was "easy" (COVID, Oct. 7) and *any* response to those events would have been sure to piss off one contingent of the GDS regardless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds made up to me. Maybe if was one kid, but as strict and disciplined things are at GDS, you won’t find two kids that would do that. I call BS.

it is because OF YOU sa VICTICMS DO NOT REPORT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, clearly GDS wants to avoid any liability so it’s clear why are doing that .

If GDS really wanted to avoid liability, they would have expelled the students who present a real harm to other students. There's no reason for GDS to keep students who so violently assaulted another child. Even assuming that the alleged perpetrators are "connected" or have parents who are significant donors, the threat of future harm, especially knowing that the students have a record of assault, is so great that the risk to the school's reputation and the cost of a lawsuit would outweigh the benefits of keeping those students at GDS. (Not to mention GDS has enough wealthy and connected families that losing one or two would not be terribly detrimental to the school.) Security at the school is tight. No one enters without passing through two sets of doors and security (at least one of whom is recently retired MPD) at the front desk. The design of the grade-level floors is such that bathrooms are not hidden in some corridor; they are right off the hallway and surrounded by classrooms. People would see you enter and leave the bathroom. Perhaps the alleged student perpetrators were eventually counseled out. Who knows? But without sufficient evidence, the school is limited in its public response.
I feel horrible for the family and the distress that they are feeling. I am sure that something awful happened to their child, but it's not clear exactly what based upon the available corroborating evidence.
As for Russell, he's been a great HOS. Yes, there are some things that he could have handled differently, but none of the events that people like to bring up was "easy" (COVID, Oct. 7) and *any* response to those events would have been sure to piss off one contingent of the GDS regardless.