Families: Virginia Tech notes show poor decisions

Updated 3:42 a.m.

The disclosure of 59 pages of handwritten notes taken by Virginia Tech officials during the 2007 campus massacre is stirring anger and anxiety among some of the victims’ parents.

Andrew Goddard of Short Pump, whose son Colin survived three gunshots in Norris Hall, said yesterday that the notes highlighted for him Tech’s failure to properly notify students that a gunman was on the loose and possibly on campus.

“The most important story is what’s not in the papers—there are no notes about any discussion of how to notify students about a potential danger,“ Goddard said.

The notes—from five Virginia Tech officials, including President Charles W. Steger’s chief of staff—were released Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The notes also were being made available to victims’ families.

The notes are those of top Tech officials who initially gathered at Burruss Hall on April 16, 2007, to discuss the murders of two students at West Ambler Johnston dormitory about 7:20 a.m. Approximately 9:45 a.m., they received reports of shots fired inside Norris Hall.

Joseph Samaha, father of student Reema Samaha, who was slain in Norris, said he has not yet looked at the handwritten notes Tech sent him. But he said that as they were described to him, they bolster his belief that Tech did not take adequately direct action immediately before the Norris shootings—such as warning students to stay off campus.

“Why didn’t they cancel classes then? Nobody would have been on campus. The students would have probably stayed in bed,“ said Samaha, who lives in Centreville.

As they discussed the dormitory shootings, the administrators, known as the policy group, were told by campus police that investigators had a suspect—the boyfriend of the female victim—and that they believed him to be off campus. That lead proved to be erroneous.

Steger authorized a 9:26 a.m. e-mail alert that mentioned a shooting incident and urged students to be cautious.

But the policy group notes reflect no discussion about whether the e-mail should have been more explicit. Goddard, like the governor’s task force that reviewed Tech’s actions, said an e-mail should have gone out earlier and been more specific about the threat.

“What the hell were they doing during all that length of time when they should have been discussing notification? They should have been letting people know of a potential danger,“ Goddard said. He suggested that an e-mail phrase as simple as “gunman on the loose” would have prompted many students to stay inside.

The e-mail alert sent by Tech said: “A shooting incident occurred at West Ambler Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating. The university community is urged to be cautious and are asked to contact Virginia Tech Police if you observe anything suspicious or with information on the case.“

Tech officials have repeatedly said they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.

But Goddard’s opinion echoed the findings of the report from the governor’s task force on the shootings, chaired by former state police Superintendent W. Gerald Massengill. That report essentially found that Tech should have notified students, faculty and staff sooner about the grave danger.

Tech student Seung-Hui Cho killed the two students in the West Ambler Johnston dormitory about 7:20 a.m. He then waited a little over two hours—during which time the policy group was meeting—before entering Norris Hall, where he killed 25 students and five teachers and then himself.

According to the notes taken after the first shootings, police said a lockdown of campus was not advisable.

“You can’t lock down Virginia Tech—that issue is a red herring,“ Goddard said. “What was needed was to let people know there was a danger and let them decide what to do. The message they sent out was too late and too fluffy—not graphic enough.“

Samaha said he had not yet looked at the notes sent to him by Tech in part because he knew it would “create anxiety.“ But he said he would discuss the notes with other parents of victims this weekend. “We’re in search of the truth but I don’t think we’ll find it in these documents.“

Margaret Herbstritt of Bellefonte, Pa., whose son Jeremy was killed by Cho, said she was expecting the notes but had not yet received them. She was ambivalent about their worth.

“Our whole world has been altered. . . . I have two other children to raise and put through college. The notes are not going to change any of that. It’s not going to bring my son back.“

But Herbstritt said she hoped more detailed information—such as the notes—could help prevent murders at other campuses. “I hope it helps another university, that people become more aware.“

Several family members of victims contacted either did not want to comment on the notes or were so still so overwhelmed by grief that they did not wish to speak about the shootings.

Goddard said he doesn’t “want to see people’s heads on posts,“ but he does hope the notes will serve as a lesson to others who have to deal with similar situations.

———————————————
The disclosure of 59 pages of handwritten notes taken by Virginia Tech officials during the 2007 campus massacre is stirring anger and anxiety among some of the victims’ parents.

Andrew Goddard of Short Pump, whose son Colin survived three gunshots in Norris Hall, said today that the notes highlighted for him Tech’s failure to properly notify students that a gunman was on the loose and possibly on campus.

“The most important story is what’s not in the papers—there are no notes about any discussion of how to notify students about a potential danger,“ Goddard said.

The notes—from five Virginia Tech officials, including President Charles W. Steger’s chief of staff—were released Wednesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The notes also were being made available to victims’ families.

Read details about their reaction in Friday’s Times-Dispatch.