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.
The best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour.
After all, if no records were made at all, then how do we know about the decision not to make a log entry?
After enough reports and enough meetings with enough people, records of the 1998 incident were made, but clearly early on the Chief was trying to keep it off the record. That is what the record shows, isn't it???
If the Chief of the University Police in 1998 could justify making no "crime log entry" [a euphemism perhaps???] because of "lack of clear evidence of a crime", even though he had the mother and her son ready to testify, how much easier would it have been for the Chief to subsequently justify making no "crime log entry" in 2001 until he finds his "clear evidence".
Would the Chief consider McQuery's witnessing of the incident alone as "clear evidence of a crime", or would the Chief say that he has to also speak with the boy before having before him "clear evidence of a crime"???