Let me assist you:
"The victim's mother reported the 1998 incident to campus police. According to the Freeh report, then-Police Chief Thomas Harmon told University Vice President Gary Schultz: "We're going to hold off on making any crime log entry. At this point in time I can justify that decision because of the lack of clear evidence of a crime."
Did the mother contact the university police???
Yes.
Did Schultz meet with the Chief of the University Police??
Yes
Did the Chief of the University Police say that he was not going to make a record of the incident even after being notified by the mother and meeting with Schultz???
Yes
A report to and a meeting with the university police and still no record down on paper. Just because a record wasn't made BY the Chief of the University Police didn't mean that a report wan't made TO the Chief of the University Police, does it???
So what's to say the same thing didn't happen in 2001 ???
Freeh's words "No record exists" do not mean that "No report was made".
What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001??? Is the only evidence of "no contact" that "No record exists" or was the Chief contacted in 2001 as he was in 1998 and simply made no record of it in 2001 as he made no record of it in 1998 even after a report was made and a meeting was held???
First, I don’t think you can extrapolate from one contact with the University police which did not result in a “log entry”, to think that they never made any reports from the 1998 incident, or that there wouldn’t be any reports made in 2001. It’s possible, but it’s a big stretch. After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry? Seems like they got that information from some written records about the 1998 incident and their decision-making process. Which would mean that there is written evidence of the 1998 report after all.
“What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001???”
Well, I don’t know, how about the email chain where the conspirators are conspiring not to report it? I’d say that is some prime evidence right there.
First, I don’t think you can extrapolate from one contact with the University police which did not result in a “log entry”, to think that they never made any reports from the 1998 incident, or that there wouldn’t be any reports made in 2001. It’s possible, but it’s a big stretch. After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry? Seems like they got that information from some written records about the 1998 incident and their decision-making process. Which would mean that there is written evidence of the 1998 report after all.
“What evidence is there that the Chief of the University Police was not contacted in 2001???”
Well, I don’t know, how about the email chain where the conspirators are conspiring not to report it? I’d say that is some prime evidence right there.