Despite
all the maneuvering and not so subtle pressures brought to bear on the Pryde
and Peterson families, they filed a lawsuit in the Fairfax County Circuit Court
in northern Virginia on April 16, 2009. At the time, the Pryde and Peterson
families issued a statement explaining their actions and why they did not go
along with the other victims’ families in reaching an out-of-court settlement.
The two families said they declined to go along with the earlier settlement
because they did not have all the facts on the handling of the shooting. The
press quoted the two families as saying, “We believe that our suit is necessary
to reveal truths that ultimately will benefit all those who have shared in this
tragic loss.” The following is the
statement issued by the two families:
“We
raised our daughters with a sense of integrity, a desire to seek the truth and
a belief in keeping their word. Virginia Tech did not keep its word to us. We
have filed this lawsuit in the hope that we will receive accountability for the
tragic events of April 16, 2007.”
“The
faculty and students of Virginia Tech have been extremely supportive of the
families during this difficult time. Erin and Julia loved Virginia Tech and
they felt at home there and were receiving a wonderful education. But, on April
16, 2007 the administrators who ran the university let our daughters down in
ways we are just now learning.”
“Sadly,
the Report of the (Virginia Tech) Review Panel to the Governor, issued in
August 2007, contained important inaccuracies, despite the panel’s best efforts
to get to the truth. University officials, it now appears, may have been less
than candid and forthright in their responses to the questions put to them by
the panel.”
The
court proceedings began on Monday March 5, 2012 with the jury selection
process. Andy Goddard sat and listened to the opening day remarks as Judge
William Alexander introduced the plaintiffs and their lawyers as well as the
lawyers for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Judge Alexander explained that this was a civil trial and as such, had a
lower standard of proof than a criminal trial. In a civil trial, the plaintiffs
have to prove there is a preponderance of evidence that Virginia Tech, acting
as an agent for the Commonwealth of Virginia, was negligent in failing to warn
students of danger on the campus. The
judge noted that many of the prospective jurors had ties to Virginia Tech, but
that would not disqualify them as long as the relationship had not made it
impossible for them to be impartial. Judge Alexander also cautioned that once
the jury was selected, the jurors must listen to the evidence, instructions on
the law from the judge as well as all the arguments, and only then decide.
Their decision must be made on what they had heard during the trial.
By
noon of the second day the jury was selected and seated. Judge Alexander then
advised the jury that they must:
- Decide if
the Commonwealth of Virginia was negligent not to warn Ms. Pryde and Ms.
Peterson of danger on campus.
- Determine if
this negligence was the proximate cause of Ms. Pryde and Ms. Peterson’s
deaths, and if so what compensatory damages should be awarded.
- Bear in mind
that the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence.
The
prosecution then began its case. Andy Goddard knew the chronology of events by
heart; he could repeat them in his sleep. As he listened, he already knew when
Ryan Clark and Emily Hilscher were murdered, between 7:05 and 7:12 a.m. He also
knew that between 7:21 and 7:24 a.m. the police were on the scene and found
bloody footprints leading away from the crime scene as well as a bloody thumb print
on a door at the end of the footprint trail.
Goddard
continued to listen to the already well-known facts: by 7:50 a.m. the police
knew they were looking for a 9mm automatic weapon because of the shell casings
found near the bodies. It was readily
apparent that the crime was not a murder-suicide because the police found no
weapon at the crime scene.
According
to Chief Flinchum’s testimony, he arrived at the crime scene between 7:44 a.m.
and 7:49 a.m. He was, then, aware of the above information. The chief admitted
on the stand that he had the authority to issue a warning; he also indicated
that he never raised the subject of warning the campus in his talks with
President Steger. By 8:15 a.m., an hour after the shootings, the students,
staff, and faculty had not been alerted to the murders. No one other than a few
police officers and school administrators knew that a gunman could be present
on the campus. Chief Flinchum’s failure to warn students because he perceived
no threat and he believed the gunman had left the campus does not jibe with the
fact that his officers were looking for a gunman on campus, and two fully armed
and equipped swat teams were being mustered to assist in an arrest. Some believe that Flinchum’s failure to press
for a campus-wide warning and lockdown are tantamount to gross negligence.
Flinchum’s
denial that a campus-wide warning was discussed on the morning of April 16,
2007 stands at odds with official notes from Policy Group’s meeting that
fateful morning. The discrepancy can be found in a document from the Virginia
Attorney’s office, “Designation of Expert Witnesses by Defendants Commonwealth
of Virginia Charles W. Steger and James A Hyatt,” and signed by Peter R.
Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney General and dated July 28, 2011.
One
of the state’s expert witnesses, Steven J. Healy, a managing partner with the
professional services firm, Margolis, Healy and Associates, interviewed two
people, Lisa Wilkes and Kim O’Rourke, senior administrators and participants in
the senior administrative group that convened in President Steger’s conference
room in Burruss Hall. In her notes, Ms. Wilkes wrote, “a lockdown is not
necessary,” relaying her understanding that there was no imminent threat to the
campus community. Ms. O’Rourke, in her notes wrote that “police don’t believe a
lockdown is necessary at this time.”
According
to the state’s own expert, Steven J. Healy, “the senior administration reached
their opinions about the absence of danger to the rest of the campus community
through their on-going communications between Chief Flinchum, the on-scene
commander at WAJ, and Zenobia Hikes, Vice President for Student Affairs, who
was at Burruss Hall with the senior administrative group, and Edward Spencer,
Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, who was at WAJ at the command
post since 7:45 am.”
To
date, no one has explained the discrepancy between Flinchum’s sworn testimony
that a lockdown was not discussed and the official notes from the meeting in
Burruss Hall stating the exact opposite.
As I
read Andy’s courtroom notes I could only think that Flinchum’s actions do not
comport with his testimony. The police
chief not only violated the basic tenants of crime analysis, he violated common
sense. The idea literally takes one’s breath away.
How
could a man in such a position be so inept when faced with a murder scene? (To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment