Seattle Schools Community Forum

This is a lengthy post and has new information so I urge you to read to the end. Gaps abound in the Garfield case.  You can see this just from the Times' story this morning on last night's School Board election.  (And welcome Times to this story - very late to it, no?) Some have suggested that the Times article is slanted?  I would say it is underwritten and has several parts wrong.  I can say that just from a cursory reading of it.  (The Times is not allowing comments but I think that is their policy on rape cases as the comments can get very unpleasant.) Update 1: the girl did not go back to Garfield as a student.  From an e-mail from her parents: One point, she never returned to GHS. the chat you likely read referred to going to GHS after school to see friends. She then had a huge melt down concerning the retaliation.  The District granted her a school transfer with rape as the basis (we have that document), so t...

Update: So all I was trying to find out - from the FBI and National Park Service - is what was the date that  SPS asked them for their investigation report?  And what was the date that the district filed their FOIA request when the FBI/National Park Service said no to that request? Those two groups now want me to file a FOIA to find out when SPS filed their FOIA.  Kind of funny.  (I would ask the district but I'd like direct verification myself.) end of update 1) There is a lengthy account at the Facebook page associated with the family of the student assaulted.  I do have a few questions but I'll wait and see if the family contacts me.  It is fairly well-fleshed out so they were clearly documenting as they went along (a very good thing for all parents to do should any type of school situation arise - document everything ). 2) I called the Seattle office of the FBI.  The press officer sent me a statement; they aren't answering any questions...

Update:  Both KIRO-7 tv and KING-5 tv have done stories on this issue.  I think that the story has legs and that they may continue on (especially now that the Title IX and the Department of Education has gotten involved.)  I note that the KING-5 piece says that the district couldn't get access to the FBI investigation and that the parents of the girl refused to allow the district to talk to her.  (This because the girl had been out-of-state at a residential facility to help her.)  Therefore, the district "did not have the evidence to fully support her claims."  This seems to be a different story than below but I find the wording suspect below so I would need a timeline to decide. end of update. From President Peaslee: