By disclosing one girl’s initials, plus her birth year, plus the time interval she trained with BM, that would probably identify her to other people training with BM at the time. Whoever leaked the SS documents is the person who threatened the anonymity of the JDs.
This was what I was agreeing with with my post. I’m terrible with faces… but I’ll remember your horse. I would be upset if, in making a confidential report and supplying a picture supporting my claim that the accused (RMD) knew me (the trainer riding my horse), that same picture then became published in the news. Different if it was a picture of RMD riding some random horse, but the article has linked ownership of THAT horse to THAT victim. If someone from that period of time recognised the horse - there goes anonymity.
It’s strange that you quoted the post you quoted but tried to redirect me to a different topic.
Look at the post and then think about your characterisation of what the McDonalds are saying publicly as harmless “griping”. That is not an accurate assessment of their behaviour. If that behaviour does not bother you, that’s a red flag.
Your post was responding to a previous post of mine in which I had asked who you thought leaked the confidential SS documents. Your post ignored the question (which to me is the important question), so I asked the question again.
I think it is most likely one or both of the JDs who leaked the material, but I admit I have no way of knowing.
If you’re agnostic as to who leaked the documents and don’t think it’s an important question, that’s cool.
I agree then leak was likely the JDs, but there’s a possibility some was by BMD too. I was always surprised when a parent adjudicated for neglect or abuse released confidential docs about their kids. That showed the abuser is a poor light, no less.
The OC Register article claims they had 4 sources who corroborated the veracity of the SafeSport documents that they relied upon for that article. And it’s clear one or both of the Jane Does spoke with the reporter. And it seems like SafeSport corroborated their statements.
@CurrentlyHorseless posed the question earlier… if the Jane Does did provide all this documentation to the reporter, does that action negatively impact the potential SafeSport case (if it is reopened)?
In my opinion, no. It’s 2 separate issues. If Bob McDonald needs to be banned, then he should be banned. If both Jane Does are still actively riding and competing, then perhaps SafeSport can independently levy a minor sanction on them (a few months suspension or something like that), for violating the confidentiality rules of the processes. But that’s about it.
I think it’s pretty clear why either the JDs, or SafeSport, or a combination of both of them cooperated with the reporter and provided the information… because of the McDonald’s public statements in August of 2020.
Debbie’s contract had expired before the McDonald’s statement was published on Tuesday, Nov. 30.
She’s still a USEF member for all we know, but how is she still considered an employee ?
It’s clear someone violated the confidentiality of the SS case by handing over a bunch of “confidential” SS documents to the press. An important question to me is: who leaked the documents?
Why does it matter who did the leaking?
If it was SS itself, this undermines the credibility of SS by demonstrating that they’re not living up to their own rules. This weakens their credibility for when they go after the next respondents in the future. Further, if SS did the leaking, BM may use the procedural “foul” in the arbitration proceeding if the ban is reinstated. Will that make a difference? Who knows, but SS having violated its own rules (if it did) makes their case more problematic. For these reasons, I’m hoping that SS is not the leaker.
If it was one or both JDs did the leaking, that does not weaken SSs credibility, since they can’t control the JDs but must give them access to the reports. If it was the JDs who did the leaking, I would thinking would have less impact on a future arbitration case than if it was SS that did the leaking.
OK, here is where people are going to disagree with me: if it was one or both of the JDs who leaked the confidential documents, clearly violating the confidentiality of the SS process, isn’t it understandable that the McDonalds would express their being “upset” that the JDs hide behind anonymity while publicly revealing the details of the confidential SS investigations? In other words, if there was a foul committed by the JDs in leaking damaging confidential files, anonymously, the upsetting part of it is probably more the leaking of the damaging confidential files part than the anonymity part.
BM is still maintaining his innocence, which he has the right to do given that SS closed the case. (He does not have the right to say he was exonerated, because he wasn’t exonerated, but he had the right to claim innocence at this point.) I don’t think he is innocent, but he has not been found responsible for the SS violation or liable in the civil case yet.
The JD’s are not held to the confidentiality agreement in relation to their own experiences unless they have signed a nondisclosure clause.
When they go to the media or launch a lawsuit after withdrawing from the SS process obviously they can discuss their own experiences publicly. Victims are always allowed to do this in any context. It’s the judicial body and the defendents that can’t disclose about the victims.
Obviously the newspaper article is based on talking to one or more of the victims. There is nothing unethical about this, especially since it was after the SS process fell apart. They were only discussing their own experiences.
The reporter said that the article was based in part on SS documents. I would have thought that SS requires all parties to maintain confidentiality of the SS documents they have access to.
That’s the issue to me - not disclosing their personal experience, but disclosing SS documents on the SS investigation.
Does it say how much “in part” is?
Could the “in part” be parts that everyone has access to and the rest of the information is from the victims, stuff they are allowed to talk about because they are victims?
This is where the technicalities come in. What do those docs look like? Were they summaries of the victims statements, or more than that? People often violate confidentiality agreements, but without knowing what confidentiality is in place and the scope of it, we can’t assume there were any violations. The photo certainly didn’t come from SS, even if they were given a copy, it’s still the JDs photo to give out.
Coming here (I usually hang out on the fantastic SS thread, that has impacted real change in the Northern Virginia equestrian community) to say the McDonalds’ statement is shockingly tone deaf. I can’t imagine any crisis management team would have created such a response. It would have been better that they kept silent and said nothing.
The JDs are very brave to come out after suffering for all these years ago. And if I were them, and the SS class was temporarily closed, I would sure as hell utilize the civil court system and share my facts with a reporter (if that’s indeed what occurred).
I believe the JD’s, admire their bravery and pray the civil court system and SS bring about justice.
