|
Post by alum on Dec 2, 2018 14:21:35 GMT -5
Believe it is up to the victim to ask for police involvement. Once they ask it's automatic. Police investigate serious crimes not reported by victims all of the time. This comes up in domestic violence situations regularly. I am sure HC Public Safety would call in the Worcester Police for a violent felony no matter what the victim wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 3, 2018 9:09:27 GMT -5
It sounds like they've reached a dead end. If new information comes to light the investigation can easily be re-opened. I do not know what kind of time line municipal authorities use to determine if something is a cold case.
Back in the olden days, campus security at most schools was heavily populated by wanna-be police officers who could not get a job as a municipal or state cop. That is not true today. Many schools send their campus security officers to a police academy. It is common for schools with properly trained campus security (now usually called public safety officers) to be granted legitimate police authority on their campuses. I do not know if HC falls under that, but I believe they do.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 3, 2018 10:09:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Dec 3, 2018 10:43:07 GMT -5
At this point the Dinand library flasher appears definitely not to have been a HC student.
An extensive HC Public Safety investigation of the alleged anti-LGBTQ assault has found nothing and has been suspended [it is unclear as to whether or not the anti-LGBTQ attack itself has been substantiated but it is very clear the alleged assailant has not been identified].
Earlier reporting noted that the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was not reported to local law enforcement (Worcester Police) and therefore their Hate Crimes folks were not engaged.
I think the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was one of the reasons for the “ENGAGE Summit: Where Do We Go From Here?”
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 3, 2018 12:48:46 GMT -5
At this point the Dinand library flasher appears definitely not to have been a HC student.
An extensive HC Public Safety investigation of the alleged anti-LGBTQ assault has found nothing and has been suspended [it is unclear as to whether or not the anti-LGBTQ attack itself has been substantiated but it is very clear the alleged assailant has not been identified].
Earlier reporting noted that the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was not reported to local law enforcement (Worcester Police) and therefore their Hate Crimes folks were not engaged.
I think the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was one of the reasons for the “ENGAGE Summit: Where Do We Go From Here?” And nothing appears to have come from the anonymous Instagram account with the 50+ sexual assault stories. So a full afternoon of classes were cancelled for 60+ SJW events, but none of the supposed causes of such events have been substantiated? Sure would be nice to have a President who was capable of stepping up to lead the school instead of allowing embarrassing incidents to continue to drag the College's name through the mud in the public.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 3, 2018 13:20:35 GMT -5
From hcpride's T&G excerpt "While the college never provided details about the incident, students said the victim, a LGBTQ-identifying student at the college, was called a slur and then punched by another student while walking across the campus on Oct. 27."
IIRC, when news of this attack first came out, the attacker(s) was unknown, i.e., the victim could not identify him as a student, which left open the possibility the attacker was a non-student. If the attacker is indeed still unidentified, why is it reported that other students say it was a HC student?
As the colleges have to report such attacks to the Federal government, there is a provision in that report allowing for reports of such attacks to be classified as 'unfounded' if no corroboration is found after investigation. ___________________
As for BBC's lament about Fr B., --the Friday afternoon campus-wide engagement was initiated by the students, particularly the SGA. Should Fr. B. have told the student government leaders to take a hike?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 3, 2018 13:32:45 GMT -5
Or, he could have ignored them, as he appears to be doing with the organist victims.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 3, 2018 14:54:32 GMT -5
__________________ As for BBC's lament about Fr B., --the Friday afternoon campus-wide engagement was initiated by the students, particularly the SGA. Should Fr. B. have told the student government leaders to take a hike? Well, for starters he shouldn't have cancelled an afternoon of classes to make it into an even bigger spectacle. If students wanted to organize events, they would have been free to do so on their own time. But before even getting to that point, if he would have actually displayed some leadership to get out in front of everything and assure everyone that the school was on top of things (and determining whether or not these incidents actually had any validity), we wouldn't have gotten to the point of having over 60 events to discuss what seemed like any issue that could even possibly exist now or in the future at HC.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 3, 2018 15:14:00 GMT -5
Or, he could have ignored them, as he appears to be doing with the organist victims. I think that you have to applaud the administration, faculty, and students for how seriously they took this incident and the reports of other incidents which arose out of it. That is what makes the apparently cautious response to the organist victims so discomforting. The only possible reason that I can come up with for Father B's failure to meet with the victims is the likelihood that the College is going to be sued over this. The story from the Telegram indicated that some of the victims had counsel. Perhaps the College's counsel or its insurer, if there is coverage, have discouraged a meeting. I don't agree with that strategy, but I can understand that it might be the case.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Dec 3, 2018 15:32:28 GMT -5
At this point the Dinand library flasher appears definitely not to have been a HC student.
An extensive HC Public Safety investigation of the alleged anti-LGBTQ assault has found nothing and has been suspended [it is unclear as to whether or not the anti-LGBTQ attack itself has been substantiated but it is very clear the alleged assailant has not been identified].
Earlier reporting noted that the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was not reported to local law enforcement (Worcester Police) and therefore their Hate Crimes folks were not engaged.
I think the alleged anti-LGBTQ attack was one of the reasons for the “ENGAGE Summit: Where Do We Go From Here?” And nothing appears to have come from the anonymous Instagram account with the 50+ sexual assault stories. So a full afternoon of classes were cancelled for 60+ SJW events, but none of the supposed causes of such events have been substantiated? Sure would be nice to have a President who was capable of stepping up to lead the school instead of allowing embarrassing incidents to continue to drag the College's name through the mud in the public. Agreed. Father Phil has got to go!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 3, 2018 16:38:52 GMT -5
A couple of random thoughts
- From the Telegram as quoted above
I find this a strange sentence. This suggests that multiple students witnessed the assault. This is new information. Since the assailant has always been singular, it would be rather bold for one student to attack someone else with a group near-by. My guess is sloppy reporting of hear-say and that there were no other witnesses. I am not doubting that an attack happened. I am doubting the Telegram's implication that there were witnesses, Since the victim did not know the assailant, my best guess is that the label of "student" is no more reliable than the any other hear-say
- Re the webpage that claimed there were 50+ attacks on campus: At the time I said that while I would not take anonymous posts on some internet forum as gospel truth, the nature of the allegations merits investigation. I only heard about the webpage a couple of weeks ago. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that investigation is concluded. It took 5 weeks for the investigation of the Easy Street attack. That was one incident with a known victim. Tracking down multiple incidents with no names to even get started should take longer. If the stories on the webpage are not corroborated after a reasonable investigation, then the matter will likely be dropped. The fact that Crossports hasn't heard anything doesn't make me lean one way or the other
- I'm not sure what we think Fr B should be doing about the organ guy. The victims say they want money and they've hired a lawyer. That sounds like a law suit to me. Pretty standard practice that the defendant can't make statements or talk to anybody - especially the plaintiffs. I don't know how the school is going to do their investigation if civil proceedings are prohibiting them from interviewing the victims
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 3, 2018 16:59:07 GMT -5
I believe the victims said they wanted to speak with Fr, B. That is a separate issue from the money.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 3, 2018 17:02:56 GMT -5
I believe the victims said they anted to speak with Fr, B. That is a separate issue from the money. They might see it as a separate issue, but once they say they want money and get lawyers involved, it all becomes one issue. All communication has to go through the lawyers now. We might wish it wasn't so, but that's just how things work
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 3, 2018 17:14:02 GMT -5
I am sad to see a Catholic institution running like just another business. I would expect more from the Jesuits.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Dec 3, 2018 20:04:22 GMT -5
I find this a strange sentence. This suggests that multiple students witnessed the assault. This is new information. Since the assailant has always been singular, it would be rather bold for one student to attack someone else with a group near-by. My guess is sloppy reporting of hear-say and that there were no other witnesses. I am not doubting that an attack happened. I am doubting the Telegram's implication that there were witnesses, Since the victim did not know the assailant, my best guess is that the label of "student" is no more reliable than the any other hear-say Agreed. I am a bit surprised HC was unable to substantiate the alleged hate crime or identify the alleged attacker (if I understand the reporting and limited info given out by HC) despite "almost 200 hours devoted to this investigation, including the viewing of over 100 hours of security camera footage and more than 40 interviews”. To be honest, I am also a bit surprised the investigation was suspended (apparently without resolution) after five weeks given the enormous publicity - I would have thought Public Safety would have brought in the Worcester Police Special Crimes unit before suspending the investigation. From an earlier WT article "No arrest has been made and no charges filed by campus police, according to the Worcester district attorney’s office, which would handle any prosecution. Worcester police, through a spokesman, said they have not been called about the reported incident, and their Special Crimes unit, which handles hate crimes, has not been consulted."
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 4, 2018 6:55:22 GMT -5
I believe the victims said they wanted to speak with Fr, B. That is a separate issue from the money. According to the T&G, in their letter to Fr. B., they put Fr. B (and the college) on notice compensation for damages was being sought. Then the T&G went on to report, The T&G does not say when counsel began her representation, but I believe the usual practice would be for counsel to notify the college immediately that she was representing the three named students in this matter. This is further complicated by the college's insurers weighing in with their counsel (as payment for damages is in the offing) and presumably an investigation is also underway at Oberlin. I would ordinarily say that Wellesley is off the hook, but one of the five letter signers is a female graduate of HC. Wellesley may also be investigating.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Dec 5, 2018 11:02:41 GMT -5
I find the whole way this reported assault has been handled to be very puzzling. For one thing, any assault claim should have been handled by the Worcester police, period.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 5, 2018 13:42:13 GMT -5
Is it possible that due to the statute of limitations criminal charges could not be filed? LoveHC No. The statute of limitations is not in play in this instance. And to file charges against someone, you have to identify a perpetrator. No perpetrator(s) has yet been identified.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 5, 2018 15:28:48 GMT -5
Thank you for the clarification/correction. My error. Actually, I erroneously thought the reference was to the the complaint by the alums against the organ professor. LoveHC There is a statute of limitations with respect to civil suits alleging sex abuse, but the Massachusetts statute is specific as to sex abuse of minors, which would not seem to be the case here. In the case of a minor, the statute of limitations might not toll until several decades have passed.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 5, 2018 16:34:52 GMT -5
I find the whole way this reported assault has been handled to be very puzzling. For one thing, any assault claim should have been handled by the Worcester police, period. I have had similar discussions with a friend who is in charge of campus police at a consortium of private colleges. He claims up and down that his officers are police and as such you don't need to hand it over to a different police department. The organist situation is a little different than the generic talks I've had since both the organist and the campus police are entities of the school itself. If, as an example, the accused were the Worcester police dispatcher, should the investigation be handed off the to State Police or is an internals affairs officer of the Worcester PD capable of handling the investigation without appearance of conflict of interest?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 15, 2018 8:32:10 GMT -5
Here's an update:
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 25, 2019 5:38:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 25, 2019 6:39:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Feb 25, 2019 9:05:00 GMT -5
Not exactly "news" since the protests were a few weeks ago
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 25, 2019 12:22:37 GMT -5
Manoussakis is a Greek Orthodox priest.
|
|