IllianaLancerContra

New Cadets Sexual Assault Accusation

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MusicManNJ said:

There is more to the story than how the "guardian" is portraying the issue. Seems to me they organization did exactly what they should do when the situation arose. I find it odd anyone would put the person who was the victim of the alleged assault in the position of having this all aired out in public. I feel badly for the minor who now has this laid out for all the world to read. But the guardian who put this out there... to try to litigate this over social media and emails to everyone in the world... makes me wonder what is really going on here. 

and didn't hide the name or corps he's wit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, exitmusic said:

Whatever the facts, YEA never in a million years should have engaged with the author directly. A huge misstep. All they ended up doing is created evidence. 

This is why lawyers cost so much. They save you from shooting your own stupid foot. 

however only part of the evidence has been presented. We have no records of what YEA actually did or did not do.

Edited by Jeff Ream
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatzzz said:

Not going to comment on the details of the story because I'm sure there is more to the story and I'll wait for all of the details to come out to form a full opinion.

With that said I will say this. The BOD, Director and Staff knew of this issue/allegation last year. Knowing that and knowing their recent history I am even more dumbfounded that they decided it a good choice to depict a woman getting assaulted and her clothes ripped off and then assaulted again on a staircase at the tour premiere. Yes, it has been changed a little since but where are the adults in the organization that should have said no from the moment it was talked about as a choice in design meetings. Maybe they did not and never will learn. Completely and utterly tone-deaf and clueless to their current situation.

Video of the show at the Detroit premiere is online. Not remembering the scene as you describe it, I watched it a couple times just now to refresh my memory.

Your description does not seem to me to be a fair portrayal of what happens in that video.

The opening movement depicts a queen or princess figure in a yellow dress. who appears on the stairs mid-field and parades to the front. The music is a fanfare and processional. At the end of that number, there is a transitional section in which we hear vocal samples singing "just a crown", "just her royal crest", "just her father's house", and so forth, as her crown and some other regnal trappings are taken from her. She is then accosted by a mob, and pursued to the top of the stairs where the movement concludes with a struggle in which her scepter is snatched away and she runs down the back of the staircase. (Someone here referred to her dress being torn off, but that's not the case: she's still wearing it when she runs off--and in fact, on the fan video on Youtube, you can glimpse her early in the next movement, running with the yellow dress to a spot behind one of the stair units where she presumably changes clothes. Maybe part of her dress came off or was undone? But if so, that's not visible on this video, i.e., from a typical audience perspective.) There is also some prerecorded chanting at that point, which is hard to make out, but one of the words sounds like "war". The next movement portrays some sort of large scale conflict, although I admit it's hard to follow the plot, if there is one, of the rest of the show.

To me at the cinema, and again watching now, the sequence you describe is clearly about some sort of political usurpation or disinheritance. At that point in my initial viewing, I figured the show was referring to something like the history of Queen Elizabeth I (who was imprisoned in the Tower of London and at risk of execution when still a princess) or some other exiled figure (I thought also of Kirsten Stewart's character in Snow White and the Hunstman) who later returns triumphantly to her throne.

Given that you are not the only person who was disturbed, however, I cannot dispute that something about the action gave other people a different impression than it did me. And others are saying that this show has been changed since then, so apparently the staff had second thoughts too. But not right away, it would seem, since after also watching video of the same sequence performed at the Lawrence show more than a week later, I don't see any difference in the actions performed.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MusicManNJ said:

I was thinking the same thing. There is much more to this story... the Guardian has spoken. Guardian says a settlement was offered. No mention if it was asked for. Would love to know the answer to that question. YEA has not be afraid to admit to mistakes in the past. Let's see what the ultimate YEA response will be. 

whatever they say will be lawyered to death and may not reveal all. But after 5 readings of this letter, while i have a nit or two to pick with some YEA actions ( more from the report than the letter), the more I find holes in the Guardians story, especially since they did not thoroughly hide the kids name or where he is now marching.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man this a slippery slope we are heading down, because cadets have done everything that can do to ensure the safety of their members against everyone but the members themselves. Those that marched know that the members police themselves (for the most part) when it comes to lights out and down time. One of the amazing aspects of drum corps is the freedom afforded to young teens to be young adults with responsibility to be adults for the first time in their lives.. 

If this leads to corps ensuring member safety at all times, there is alot of downtime that an admin team can absolutely have no way to account for 150+ members and their own individual actions...

Going to be interesting to see what cadets stance on this is. The investigation reports don't seem to establish whether the incident happened as there are conflicting accounts from G & A, but seem to determine that there is no further action required as both G & A live in different states and are no longer on tour... Will the cadets deny the incident occurred? Will they admit it happened but say that they have done everything that the could as an organization and that the audition process was followed for 2019..

The absolute worst that could happen is that the cadets are found to have been at fault for anything here, because if they are at fault, then all drum corps would be exposed to the same thing that cadets have been exposed to.. and that is a very tall order..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Why didn't YEA (or DCI) put out a statement last summer as soon as they found out the alleged assault occurred?  It makes it look like a coverup. And now YEA / DCI are in catch-up mode.   Perception is reality.

If I were the victim, I would be horrified if YEA or DCI put out a statement.  Unless they were authorized or asked by the victim to release a statement and failed to do so, they showed appropriate restraint by staying mum on the topic.  

 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Glenn426 said:

Man this a slippery slope we are heading down, because cadets have done everything that can do to ensure the safety of their members against everyone but the members themselves. Those that marched know that the members police themselves (for the most part) when it comes to lights out and down time. One of the amazing aspects of drum corps is the freedom afforded to young teens to be young adults with responsibility to be adults for the first time in their lives.. 

If this leads to corps ensuring member safety at all times, there is alot of downtime that an admin team can absolutely have no way to account for 150+ members and their own individual actions...

Going to be interesting to see what cadets stance on this is. The investigation reports don't seem to establish whether the incident happened as there are conflicting accounts from G & A, but seem to determine that there is no further action required as both G & A live in different states and are no longer on tour... Will the cadets deny the incident occurred? Will they admit it happened but say that they have done everything that the could as an organization and that the audition process was followed for 2019..

The absolute worst that could happen is that the cadets are found to have been at fault for anything here, because if they are at fault, then all drum corps would be exposed to the same thing that cadets have been exposed to.. and that is a very tall order..  

see the video link. Doug Rutherford answers your questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LoveKathyG said:

If I were the victim, I would be horrified if YEA or DCI put out a statement.  Unless they were authorized or asked by the victim to release a statement and failed to do so, they showed appropriate restraint by staying mum on the topic.  

 

with minors involved, they make a statement at the time, they are toast 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to re-read the email several times as it’s  quite lengthy and jumps all over the place at times.

 

it’s quite lengthy because some of the information contained in it has nothing to do with her or her son situation. There is a half page of quotes from the cadets about their commitment to member safety and adhering to the policies etc. etc. and her feelings about those statements as it pertained to her son. 

 

however it’s important to point out that those quotes were in reference to a completely different type of situation involving members and staff’s, not 2 minor members and were taken out of context. 

 

I also want to point out some twisting of words that were used and i can DEFINITELY see where one could have different perspectives on the interpretations . At one point in the email the mother writes that she received a response from YEA that “child protective in Indiana would be handling all further communication and investigation”. The mother then writes,  the worker told her that they did not request there not be contact and check ins on them. 

 

i need to point out these are two very different things. 

One is an organizational approach and looking at the legality of the total situation and allegations being lodged against them versus the mothers opinion that the organization should’ve reached out to her and provided aftercare. It’s clear from the response that she got that they did not wish to have direct communications with them and I could be entirely wrong in my quick assumption that this would be to avoid direct communication with persons alleging they had a part in this minor/minor offense. 

 

I also would support the director not disclosing to their staff this child’s incident/situation for the Feb. audition. This child is still a minor and relaying information such as that can also have legal consequences.

 

 

I do feel it’s important to point out that the mother requested a settlement. In her emails she states they received a small cash settlement along with a nondisclosure agreement . does it matter the amount of the settlement? 

I again would like to point out that settlements and nondisclosure agreements are used very often. Settlements and nondisclosure agreements offer a way to resolve an issue without assigning blame. From what I can tell the cadets felt they handled the situation appropriately ( and from what i can tell with this one sided amount of info,  they did). 

but given the controversy they have already gone through I can see why they may have agreed to the settlement.

 

 

I need to thoroughly state that her child went through a nightmare ordeal and every parents worst nightmare. The authorities have the information regarding the alleged perpetrator. But it’s important to remember that, that action is separate from what she’s trying to hold cadets responsible for. 

 

I personally feel that her making every detail including her sons first name, where he’s marching, every action that happened during the incident and making it public to the entire drum corp community could potential make any anxiety and PTSD that he has more significant and i feel so badly for him. 

 

 

as a parent of a marcher,  I have kept a close eye on these boards over the past 18 months. I would say that I am on here at least twice a week during active seasons. I’m familiar with a lot of the bantering, opinions of some versus others, so while i may be posting for first time- I just felt it was important to point out the things that I’ve noticed before the lynch mob attacked, as that could potentially lead the activity, that’s already been through a lot of negatives,further downward. 

 

it’s just when persons are emotional and feel a certain way about the situation, that’s when perceptions actually can be different and then interpreted in their own way. what happened to her son is absolutely horrible. would it have been nice for cadets admin‘s to reach out over the months and see how he was doing? yes. obligated too when there are looming legal threats? no. 

 

But the cadets did report the situation to all authorities promptly and can not be held accountable for members actions against other members. 

 

( and no, i am not a cadets fantastical, lol. nor does my child march the cadets.)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so now I'm reading the mother's letter and not just people's comments about it here (and the news story), and I have some questions. I'm bolding one item in particular where I think the letter is likely mistaken.

Let me preface my first remark by emphasizing that false reports of sexual assault are very uncommon. More than 90% of such reports are true. Very few people want to put themselves through the trauma of making a false accusation, because it means sharing intimate details of your life with a bunch of strangers.

That said, if Cadets had punished the alleged perpetrator on the spot, prior to any investigation, by removing him from the corps, wouldn't they have been opened up to a lawsuit if it turned out the accusation was false? What do DCI's and/or YEA's policies call for when a member is accused of sexual assault but it hasn't been proved? If the policies clearly call for immediate removal until a final determination has been made, then Cadets apparently didn't follow them. But I don't know if that's the case

There are some mixed messages in the descriptions of what the Cadets' director, Scott Litzenberg, promised to do when the allegation was made. The letter claims (1) Litzenberg told the police that he wanted to send the alleged perpetrator home but only if doing so wouldn't interfere in the police's investigation; (2) Litzenberg told Child Protective Services that the alleged perpetrator would be "kept in a room by himself for the rest of the tour and ... closely monitored"; and (3) Litzenberg told the alleged victim on the day of the incident that the alleged perpetrator "is gone and will be sent home."

Did Litzenberg really make such contradictory assurances? If so, can they be reconciled? Did Litzenberg initially tell the alleged victim that the alleged perpetrator would be sent home, only to be asked by the police not to do so?  Did the alleged victim at some point believe that his alleged assailant would be allowed to remain in Indianapolis but would never be allowed to be "dressed in uniform for prelims, semis, and finals", to have "marched in finals retreat", and to have "attended the corps banquet on Sunday," all incidents which the alleged victim's mother clearly thinks should not have been permitted to happen?

As regards the matter of whether or not Litzenberg informed the alleged victim's parents, as the letter says he told both the police and Child Protective Services he had done, is there not any way of determining whether that's true? I mean, if he lied to the police, that would be the end for him, right?

BUT WAIT: the police report itself, which is printed at the end of the letter, says "The parents have not been contacted yet." OR WAIT AGAIN: later in the report. Litzenberg is said to have told CPS "he informed both of the parents of the incident". AND ALSO, when CPS reaches out to the alleged victim's guard, he "said he knew about the incident, though the band director, Scott Litzenberg."

So this seems like a matter of timing and misunderstanding. Litzenberg first informed the police, then informed the guardian, then told CPS that he had informed the parents of both the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim, by which he meant, in the latter case, the guardian rather than the mother.

It would be helpful if the police and/or Child Protective Services would confirm to an independent source --meaning someone other than the alleged victim's parents/guardians or DCI/YEA-- that Litzenberg was told by them not to contact the alleged victim's parents/guardians after the incident. The guardian says CPS told her this was not true.

The matter of how Litzenberg should have handled the alleged victim's audition for Cadets. The alleged victim's guardian says Litzenberg was asked to share with the audition staff that (1) the alleged victim is suffering from PTSD and attendant weight gain as a result of the incident and that (2) the alleged victim felt that returning to the corps would serve as a means of moving past the trauma. I have no idea whether it would be appropriate to convey that information or not. I would have asked a lawyer for advice on that one. (It appears that Cadets may have done so, given the carefully phrased quote from the letter Cadets' board chair.) Imagine another prospective member accidentally overhearing staff talk about this and then losing his or her spot to the alleged victim. Would that be unfair favoritism?

It's quite understandable that the alleged victim would be re-traumatized by the press release from YEA about Cadets being removed from probation. But what else were they supposed to do when that happened? Mysteriously announce that despite the probation having been removed, there was an incident last year that they couldn't talk about?

Finally, it does appear from the CPS report that the police recommended that criminal charges be filed against the alleged perpetrator.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.