Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech

More documents

Recommendations

Info

From the beginning, the concept was to structure the review according to the broad timeline pertinent to the incidents: pre-incident (Cho’s history and security status of the university); the two shooting incidents and the emergency response to them; and the aftermath. This helped ensure that all issues were covered in a logical, systematic fashion. Openness –The panel’s objective was to conduct the review process as openly as possible while maintaining confidential aspects of the police investigation, medical records, court records, academic records, and information provided in confidence. The panel’s work was governed by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, and the requirements of that act were adhered to strictly. Requests for Documents and Information – An essential aspect of the review was the cooperation the panel received from many institutions and individuals, including the staff of Virginia Tech, Fairfax County Public School officials and employees, the families of shooting victims, survivors, the Cho family, law enforcement agencies, mental health providers, the Virginia Medical Examiner, and emergency medical responders, as well as numerous public agencies and private individuals who responded to the panel’s requests for documents and information. Notwithstanding some difficulties at the outset, the Executive Order of June 18, 2007, and the work of our outside counsel ultimately allowed the panel to obtain copies of, review, or be briefed on all records germane to its review. In this regard, however, a few matters should be noted. First, as explained more fully in the body of the report, the university’s Cook Counseling Center advised the panel that it was missing certain records related to Cho that would be expected to be in the center’s files. Second, due to the sensitive nature of portions of the law enforcement investigatory record and due to law enforcement’s concerns about not setting a precedent with regard to the release of raw information from investigation files, the panel received extensive briefings and CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 7 summaries from law enforcement officials about their investigation rather than reviewing those files directly. These included briefings by campus police, Blacksburg Police, Montgomery County Police, Virginia State Police, FBI, and U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The first two such briefings were conducted in private because they included protected criminal investigation information and some material that was deemed insensitive to air in public. Most of the information received in confidence was subsequently released in public briefings and through the media. Although the panel did not have direct access to criminal investigation files and materials in their entirety, the panel was able to validate the information contained in these briefings from the records it did have access to from other sources and from discussions with many of the same witnesses who spoke to the criminal investigators. The panel believes that it has obtained an accurate picture of the police response and investigation. Finally, with respect to Cho’s firearms purchases, the Virginia State Police, the ATF, and the gun dealers each declined to provide the panel with copies of the applications Cho completed when he bought his weapons or of other records relating to any background check that may have occurred in connection with those purchases. The Virginia State Police, however, did describe the contents of Cho’s gun purchase applications to members of the panel and its staff. Virginia Tech Cooperation – An essential aspect of the review was the cooperation of the Virginia Tech administration and faculty. Despite their having to deal with extraordinary problems, pressures, and demands, the university provided the panel with the records and information requested, except for a few that were missing. Some information was delayed until various privacy issues were resolved, but ultimately all records that were requested and still existed were provided. University President Charles Steger appointed a liaison to the panel, Lenwood McCoy, a retired senior university
official. Requests for meetings and information went to him. He helped identify the right people to provide the requested information or obtained the information himself. The panel sometimes requested to speak to specific individuals, and all were made available. Many of the exchanges were monitored by the university’s attorney, who is a special assistant state attorney general. Overall, the university was extremely cooperative with the panel, despite knowing that the panel’s duty was to turn a critical eye on everything it did. Interviews – Many interviews were conducted by panel members and staff during the course of this review—over 200. A list of persons interviewed is included in Appendix B. A few interviewees wanted to remain anonymous and are not included. Panel members and staff held numerous private meetings with family members of victims and with survivors and their family members. One group of interviews was to obtain first-hand information about the incidents from victims and responders. This included surviving students and faculty, police, emergency medical personnel and hospital emergency care providers, and coordinators. The police used hundreds of personnel from many law enforcement agencies for their investigation, and the panel did not have nor need the resources to duplicate that effort. Rather, the panel obtained the benefit of much of the investigative information from the law enforcement agencies. Interviews were conducted with survivors, witnesses, and responders to validate the information received and to expand upon it. To further evaluate the actions taken by law enforcement, the university, and emergency medical services against state and national standards and norms, panel members and staff also conducted interviews with leaders in these fields outside the Virginia Tech community, from elsewhere in Virginia and from other states. The panel also solicited their expert opinions on how things might have been done better, and what things were done well that should be emulated. CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 8 Interviews were conducted to understand Cho’s history, including his medical and mental health treatment during his early school and university years, and his interactions with the mental health and legal systems. This included interviews with the Cho family, Cho’s high school staff and faculty, staff and faculty at the university, many of those involved with the mental health treatment of Cho within and outside the university (including the Cook Counseling Center and his high school counseling), and members of the legal community who had contact with him. The assistance of attorney Wade Smith of Raleigh, NC, was important in dealing with the Cho family. He helped obtain signed releases from the family and arranged an interview with them. Various experts in mental health were consulted on the problems with the mental health and legal system within Virginia that dealt with Cho. They also provided insight on ways to identify and help such individuals in other systems. In evaluating the aftermath—the attempt to mitigate the damage done to so many families, members of the university community, and the university itself—many interviews were conducted with family members of the victims, survivors and their families, people interacting with the families and survivors, and others. The family members were extended opportunities to speak to the panel in public or private sessions, as were the injured and some other survivors. For these groups, everyone who requested an interview was given one. Not all wanted interviews. Some wanted group interviews. Some were ready to speak earlier or later than others. To the best of the panel’s knowledge, and certainly its intent, all were accommodated. The panel learned a great deal about the incident and also confronted directly the indescribable grief and loss experienced by so many. From families and survivors, the panel learned about the positive aspects of the services provided after April 16 and also about the many perceived problems with those services. The panel also considered the many issues that the family members asked to be included in the investigation. This input
Page 1 and 2: Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech Apr
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS FOREWORD..................
Page 5 and 6: CHAPTER X. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDI
Page 7 and 8: Ross Abdullah Alameddine Hometown:
Page 9 and 10: Jocelyne Couture-Nowak Residence in
Page 11 and 12: FOREWORD FROM TIMOTHY M. KAINE GOVE
Page 13 and 14: T ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS he Virginia Tech
Page 15 and 16: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 2. During C
Page 17 and 18: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 4
Page 19: condition, the services rendered to
Page 23 and 24: contribution. Some lobbying groups
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER II. UNIVERSITY SETTING AND
Page 27 and 28: Many levels of campus security exis
Page 29 and 30: can be anywhere and send a message
Page 31 and 32: to the president have instruction a
Page 33 and 34: est chance to save lives is often a
Page 35 and 36: Individual Educational Program (IEP
Page 37 and 38: to the events of April 16, 2007 and
Page 39 and 40: the investigation. He informs them
Page 41 and 42: eturns again to room 206 and shoots
Page 43 and 44: and no toxic substances, drugs, or
Page 45 and 46: echocardiograph or a cardiac cather
Page 47 and 48: sponsored by that church, but she n
Page 49 and 50: sister during the interview, they a
Page 51 and 52: chose Virginia Tech, which had been
Page 53 and 54: art therapy) of underlying feelings
Page 55 and 56: who lived in another room connected
Page 57 and 58: aware of Cho’s unwanted communica
Page 59 and 60: the interaction he had had with cam
Page 61 and 62: The psychiatrist’s conclusion was
Page 63 and 64: Professor Hicok shared none of Cho
Page 65 and 66: communications generated from Resid
Page 67 and 68: encountering aberrant, dangerous, o
Page 69 and 70: special justice was extremely limit
Page 71 and 72:
do not clearly permit these records
Page 73 and 74:
interviewed by panel members felt t
Page 75 and 76:
IV-25 Virginia Code 37.2-819 should
Page 77 and 78:
address of anyone arrested and char
Page 79 and 80:
Education that interpret the law. T
Page 81 and 82:
give it personal information how it
Page 83 and 84:
information regarding a commitment
Page 85 and 86:
Virginia law also prohibits “any
Page 87 and 88:
AMMUNITION PURCHASES ho purchased a
Page 89 and 90:
RECOMMENDATIONS VI-1 All states sho
Page 91 and 92:
Not long after 7:15 a.m., noises em
Page 93 and 94:
with a young man in her room under
Page 95 and 96:
the information we had focused on a
Page 97 and 98:
Messages might have been prioritize
Page 99 and 100:
name he had written on his arm in i
Page 101 and 102:
M any police were on campus in the
Page 103 and 104:
entered the hallway. At that point,
Page 105 and 106:
Escaping - Professor Librescu’s c
Page 107 and 108:
They were followed seconds later by
Page 109 and 110:
“All students, faculty and staff
Page 111 and 112:
The close relationship of the Virgi
Page 113 and 114:
T CHAPTER IX. EMS RESPONSE Chapter
Page 115 and 116:
scene at once contrary to the reque
Page 117 and 118:
Triage Group Norris Hall VT Captain
Page 119 and 120:
officers if needed. There were no r
Page 121 and 122:
Table 4. EMS Response 14 Assisting
Page 123 and 124:
• Day surgery patients with early
Page 125 and 126:
Operations Chief CNO Staging Manage
Page 127 and 128:
PATIENT CARE/PATIENT FLOW/PATIENT O
Page 129 and 130:
Campbell counties; the cities of Ly
Page 131 and 132:
Access to online physician medical
Page 133 and 134:
Emergency Operations Center - The l
Page 135 and 136:
Chapter X OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDIC
Page 137 and 138:
safety agencies that had responded.
Page 139 and 140:
wanted to view the remains of their
Page 141 and 142:
the family assistance center, which
Page 143 and 144:
Some of these complaints are associ
Page 145 and 146:
egarding the impact of crime and ap
Page 147 and 148:
provide support in the first hours
Page 149 and 150:
support the needs at Virginia Tech.
Page 151 and 152:
decades, disaster plans have unders
Page 153 and 154:
MEETINGS, VISITS, AND OTHER COMMUNI
Page 155 and 156:
CHAPTER XI. IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH AND
Page 157 and 158:
Discussions with the family members
Page 159 and 160:
Appendix A EXECUTIVE ORDER 53 (2007
Page 161 and 162:
APPENDIX A. EXECUTIVE ORDER 53 (07)
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEWEES The Virgin
Page 171 and 172:
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEWEES William Wo
Page 173 and 174:
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEWEES Families o
Page 175 and 176:
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEWEES Mike Turne
Page 177 and 178:
Mark E. Koltko-Rivera APPENDIX B. I
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix C PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA Fi
Page 181 and 182:
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA S
Page 183 and 184:
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA 1
Page 185 and 186:
APPENDIX C. PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
Page 187 and 188:
APPENDIX D. RECOMMENDATION ON REVIS
Page 189 and 190:
APPENDIX E. GUIDELINES FOR CHOOSING
Page 191 and 192:
APPENDIX F. ACTIVE SHOOTER EXCERPT
Page 193 and 194:
1. Help is on the way. It is import
Page 195 and 196:
APPENDIX G. FERPA/HIPAA GUIDANCE FR
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
INFORMATION PRIVACY LAWS APPENDIX H
Page 219 and 220:
Educational Records APPENDIX H. SUM
Page 221 and 222:
APPENDIX H. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Page 223 and 224:
Appendix I FEDERAL AND VIRGINIA GUN
Page 225 and 226:
APPENDIX I. FEDERAL/VIRGINIA GUN PU
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
SP-237, Revised 2006 APPENDIX J. VI
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix K ARTICLES ON MIXTURE OF G
Page 237 and 238:
APPENDIX K. MIXTURE OF GUNS AND ALC
Page 239 and 240:
APPENDIX K. MIXTURE OF GUNS AND ALC
Page 241 and 242:
Appendix L FATAL SCHOOL SHOOTINGS I
Page 243 and 244:
APPENDIX L. FATAL SCHOOL SHOOTINGS:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
APPENDIX M. RED FLAGS, WARNING SIGN
Page 255 and 256:
APPENDIX M. RED FLAGS, WARNING SIGN
Page 257 and 258:
APPENDIX N: A THEORITICAL PROFILE O
Page 259 and 260:
APPENDIX N: A THEORITICAL PROFILE O
show all

Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?