Oct. 12, 2010
Some Campus Safety Websites Scrutinize Marshall University’s Decision to File a False Police Report Charge for Alleged Sexual Assault(s)
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The decision to file a “false police report” charge against an individual who reported a sexual assault at a Marshall University freshman dormitory has national precedent. Ultimately, the determination is not a favored one since it can tip an uneasy balance --- many legitimate rapes go unreported. One of the reasons is that the victim fears the legal process which in many cases places the victim’s past more on the courtroom table than the alleged perpetrators action.
According to various academic and law enforcement studies, false rape reports can range from two to four percent (False Reports : Moving Beyond the Issue compiled End Violence Against Women International (EVAW) , two to eight percent (American Prosecutors Institute) to forty percent. The higher figures , based on FVAW, tend to include numerous reports classified as improperly investigated or improperly categorized. For instance, some “false” reports should be recorded as “unsubstantiated” (which means that there is insufficient evidence to move forward with the case) or “baseless” (indicating that the claim is considered truthful, but the incident doesn’t meet specific elements of the crime). http://www.ncdsv.org/images/False%20Reports_Excerpt%2005_14_07.pdf
HNN has obtained a redacted copy of the Marshall University Police Department Crime Report of the incident which allegedly occurred September 11, 2010 between 5:21 and 7:43 p.m. at a freshman dormitory. The phone call to campus police was made September 12, 2010 at about 1:12 a.m.
The redacted report made by two officers contains two victims, a complainant, and four suspects. Three of the suspects have no venue associated with them ( two have names blacked out). The first suspect, the two victims, and complainant have MU Freshman Dorm listed as an “address.”
Essentially the redacted statement (removing names for both victim and Privacy Act concerns) reads that a male telephone campus police stating that he and a female had been sexually assaulted by his roommate and two other males in his room. Both came to the station to give details. The on-call counselor spoke with both individuals. The reporting officer transported both to Cabell-Huntington Hospital’s Emergency Department. “At the time, no contact has been made with the suspects. The investigation is on-going.”
The Charleston Gazette filed an FOIA request Oct. 4 requesting the report. A MU attorney declined stated that release would hinder the on going investigation.
The police report on October 7 contains entries by Chief James Terry that “after conducting interviews concerning the alleged sexual assault, that occurred Sept. 11 and conferring with the prosecutor’s office, there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.”
An MU news release indicated that filing a false police report and obstruction charges (both misdemeanors) had been filed against a former student. (The redacted police reports leave unclear the “former student”, except that in the Oct. 7 report only a female victim is listed.)
On Monday evening, October 11, the Gazette reported that the university had missed an Oct. 1 deadline for filing its annual crime report. The news agency relied upon the statements of three members of the Faculty Senate. Two of the members ---- Bernice Bullock, and journalism professor Nerissa Youn --- told the Gazette they have never seen an annual crime report in 20 years.
Although 2009 and 2010 reports have apparently not been found on the university website, HNN previously found crime statistics from 2005-2008, which included a 2006 and a 2008 forcible rape in the institution’s residence halls. http://www.marshall.edu/mupd/crimestats.htm
However, the website, http://www.securityoncampus.com stated that the October 1 report deadline took effect this year. But, a university is permitted to publish their security (police and fire) reports on line. If the on-line option is selected, then: “the institution must, by October 1 of each year, distribute to all current employees a notice that includes a statement of the report's availability, the exact electronic address at which the report is posted, a brief description of the report's contents, and a statement that the institution will provide a paper copy of the report upon request.”
Similarly, the Clary Act has new procedures , too, but confidentiality and an on-going investigation trump information release, which is by inference/rationality balanced against a circumstance that would constitute an on-going threat to public safety on the campus. http://www.securityoncampus.org/newregs/66846.htm
Complicating the exceptions to Clary Act “timely” release are investigative factors that may be known only to those officers and counselors working the case. With certain aspects considered confidential to protect the victims’ privacy, the hinge appears to be whether the investigation was limited to the stated case or had impact upon either an on-gong or threat of a serial rapist. (MU officials determined the incident was limited and did not threaten the community or campus.) Clary Act: http://www.securityoncampus.org/newregs/66846.htm
Although a review of procedures will apparently be examined by the U.S. Dept. of Education, the aforementioned Violence Against Women study stressed the difficulties in concluding a “false report.” Among the standards suggested for consideration by investigators are that more than ONE of certain “red flag” situations occur. (The determination is complicated by the fact any one of the so-called flags and/or stereotypes also indicate that a sexual assault likely occurred.)
As an example, based on released data, the lack of physical evidence cited as one reason for the false report conclusion , according to the EVAW study , should not be the ONLY factor in the false report process.
Others include stranger or vaguely described acquaintance not identified by name; utmost physical resistance; fabricated reports generally include only the “classic” form of rape (penile/vaginal); escalating a life or relationship problem; history of mental or emotional difficulties; details that “copycat” a highly publicized crime.
“A report should only be suspect when a number of these indicators are present,” (EVAW, 2007)
Meanwhile, the MU story has become a topic on certain national campus security sites. For instance, http://www.safercampus.org praise MU student journalists for uncovering a “troubling practice” where over the course of a day they were given “two different crime logs --- only one of which contained the record of the alleged assault.”
Safer Campus concludes that this would not violate the Clery Act, since one of the logs contained the information they are required to make available.
Their writer identified as only “Colleen” opined: “ this system appears to be obfuscating the information that the Act mandates be made public, there’s definitely a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Clery Act.” http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?tag=marshall-university
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Some Campus Safety Websites Scrutinize Marshall University’s Decision to File a False Police Report Charge for Alleged Sexual Assault(s)
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – The decision to file a “false police report” charge against an individual who reported a sexual assault at a Marshall University freshman dormitory has national precedent. Ultimately, the determination is not a favored one since it can tip an uneasy balance --- many legitimate rapes go unreported. One of the reasons is that the victim fears the legal process which in many cases places the victim’s past more on the courtroom table than the alleged perpetrators action.
According to various academic and law enforcement studies, false rape reports can range from two to four percent (False Reports : Moving Beyond the Issue compiled End Violence Against Women International (EVAW) , two to eight percent (American Prosecutors Institute) to forty percent. The higher figures , based on FVAW, tend to include numerous reports classified as improperly investigated or improperly categorized. For instance, some “false” reports should be recorded as “unsubstantiated” (which means that there is insufficient evidence to move forward with the case) or “baseless” (indicating that the claim is considered truthful, but the incident doesn’t meet specific elements of the crime). http://www.ncdsv.org/images/False%20Reports_Excerpt%2005_14_07.pdf
HNN has obtained a redacted copy of the Marshall University Police Department Crime Report of the incident which allegedly occurred September 11, 2010 between 5:21 and 7:43 p.m. at a freshman dormitory. The phone call to campus police was made September 12, 2010 at about 1:12 a.m.
The redacted report made by two officers contains two victims, a complainant, and four suspects. Three of the suspects have no venue associated with them ( two have names blacked out). The first suspect, the two victims, and complainant have MU Freshman Dorm listed as an “address.”
Essentially the redacted statement (removing names for both victim and Privacy Act concerns) reads that a male telephone campus police stating that he and a female had been sexually assaulted by his roommate and two other males in his room. Both came to the station to give details. The on-call counselor spoke with both individuals. The reporting officer transported both to Cabell-Huntington Hospital’s Emergency Department. “At the time, no contact has been made with the suspects. The investigation is on-going.”
The Charleston Gazette filed an FOIA request Oct. 4 requesting the report. A MU attorney declined stated that release would hinder the on going investigation.
The police report on October 7 contains entries by Chief James Terry that “after conducting interviews concerning the alleged sexual assault, that occurred Sept. 11 and conferring with the prosecutor’s office, there is insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.”
An MU news release indicated that filing a false police report and obstruction charges (both misdemeanors) had been filed against a former student. (The redacted police reports leave unclear the “former student”, except that in the Oct. 7 report only a female victim is listed.)
On Monday evening, October 11, the Gazette reported that the university had missed an Oct. 1 deadline for filing its annual crime report. The news agency relied upon the statements of three members of the Faculty Senate. Two of the members ---- Bernice Bullock, and journalism professor Nerissa Youn --- told the Gazette they have never seen an annual crime report in 20 years.
Although 2009 and 2010 reports have apparently not been found on the university website, HNN previously found crime statistics from 2005-2008, which included a 2006 and a 2008 forcible rape in the institution’s residence halls. http://www.marshall.edu/mupd/crimestats.htm
However, the website, http://www.securityoncampus.com stated that the October 1 report deadline took effect this year. But, a university is permitted to publish their security (police and fire) reports on line. If the on-line option is selected, then: “the institution must, by October 1 of each year, distribute to all current employees a notice that includes a statement of the report's availability, the exact electronic address at which the report is posted, a brief description of the report's contents, and a statement that the institution will provide a paper copy of the report upon request.”
Similarly, the Clary Act has new procedures , too, but confidentiality and an on-going investigation trump information release, which is by inference/rationality balanced against a circumstance that would constitute an on-going threat to public safety on the campus. http://www.securityoncampus.org/newregs/66846.htm
Complicating the exceptions to Clary Act “timely” release are investigative factors that may be known only to those officers and counselors working the case. With certain aspects considered confidential to protect the victims’ privacy, the hinge appears to be whether the investigation was limited to the stated case or had impact upon either an on-gong or threat of a serial rapist. (MU officials determined the incident was limited and did not threaten the community or campus.) Clary Act: http://www.securityoncampus.org/newregs/66846.htm
Although a review of procedures will apparently be examined by the U.S. Dept. of Education, the aforementioned Violence Against Women study stressed the difficulties in concluding a “false report.” Among the standards suggested for consideration by investigators are that more than ONE of certain “red flag” situations occur. (The determination is complicated by the fact any one of the so-called flags and/or stereotypes also indicate that a sexual assault likely occurred.)
As an example, based on released data, the lack of physical evidence cited as one reason for the false report conclusion , according to the EVAW study , should not be the ONLY factor in the false report process.
Others include stranger or vaguely described acquaintance not identified by name; utmost physical resistance; fabricated reports generally include only the “classic” form of rape (penile/vaginal); escalating a life or relationship problem; history of mental or emotional difficulties; details that “copycat” a highly publicized crime.
“A report should only be suspect when a number of these indicators are present,” (EVAW, 2007)
Meanwhile, the MU story has become a topic on certain national campus security sites. For instance, http://www.safercampus.org praise MU student journalists for uncovering a “troubling practice” where over the course of a day they were given “two different crime logs --- only one of which contained the record of the alleged assault.”
Safer Campus concludes that this would not violate the Clery Act, since one of the logs contained the information they are required to make available.
Their writer identified as only “Colleen” opined: “ this system appears to be obfuscating the information that the Act mandates be made public, there’s definitely a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Clery Act.” http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?tag=marshall-university
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
