Related: The revised Panel Report (PDF).
A revised version of the Virginia Tech Governor’s Review Panel report on the April 16, 2007 shootings has been completed and released to families by Gov. Tim Kaine and independent information systems company Tri-Data.
Kaine agreed to revise the report, originally released in late 2007, at the request of victims’ families following the discovery of shooter Seung-Hui Cho’s mental health records at the home of former Cook Counseling Center director Robert Miller in July.
All revisions were completed by Tri-Data. Kaine refused to reconvene the original panel, a measure that many families of the victims called for. Submissions of corrections were also collected from family members.
The revised report, obtained by the Collegiate Times, contains a new introduction explaining the revision process.
“Some families had personal knowledge of the events that were not previously shared,” the introduction to the revised report said. “Some families requested new interpretations of certain findings or revisions to some of the Review Panel’s recommendations in light of the new information. Virginia Tech officials also submitted comments requesting some corrections.”
Unlike the original report, several family members were interviewed
“After completing an initial review of the comments from all parties, Tri-Data submitted a number of questions to Virginia Tech and also interviewed several family members for clarification of their comments, and to cross-check information and corroborate facts,” the report said.
Despite a wide range of changes, the report said there were no corrections that warranted altering the original recommendations.
“The new and additional information has tended to reinforce the Review Panel’s original findings and recommendations,” the report said. “In several instances, emphasis was added to findings where strongly supported by the facts. While some of the findings have been modified slightly and one added, none of the new information merited changes to any of the recommendations in the original Report.”
One major change to the report was the revision of a timeline that many families said was flawed in the original report.
“This Addendum contains an expanded timeline with virtually all of the additions suggested by the families,” the report said.
WEST A.J. SHOOTINGS
The revised report more specifically explains how Cho may have selected and entered West Ambler-Johnston Hall, where he killed Emily Hilscher and Ryan Clark, his first two victims.
“Some students were assigned mailboxes located in a different dorm from their own,” the report said. “They could access their mailbox after 7:30 a.m. Cho was one of these students. He lived in Harper Hall but his mailbox was in West Ambler
Johnston where he committed the first two murders. He had access and reason to be in the mailbox area of WAJ, which may help explain why he chose it. It also was a short walk from his dorm. His motivation for the initial killings still has not been determined. He had no known relationship with Emily Hilscher, nor with her roommate.”
The revised timeline continues to document the discovery of the first two victims.
Ed Spencer, who was then associate vice president for student affairs, was the first member of the university administration aware of the shootings.
An addition to the report said a housekeeping worker in West AJ called a Burruss Hall housekeeping worker, who informed Spencer.
He notified other officials, including vice president of student affairs Zenobia Hikes. He did not reach university President Charles Steger.
One policy group member, unnamed by the report, e-mailed a “Richmond colleague” informing them that one student was dead and another critically injured.
“Gunman on the loose,” he said. “This is not releasable yet.”
It continues to say the Policy Group began composing a notice to the campus about the shootings at 8:50 a.m. but was unable to send it initially because of technical difficulties with the alert system.
Blacksburg public schools and Steger’s office were locked down at 8:52 a.m. Classes for the second period in Norris Hall began at 9:05 a.m. The report said Tech canceled trash pick up at the same time.
The shootings began around 9:40 a.m. and ended when Cho committed suicide at 9:51 a.m.
At 10:17 a.m. the university canceled all classes.
Hilscher’s boyfriend, Karl Thornhill, who had been initially labeled a person of interest in the shootings, was stopped at 9:24 a.m. Six minutes later, police informed the Policy Group he was likely not the shooter.
A correction to the report said Steger spoke with Virginia Tech Chief of Police Wendell Flinchum at 8:11 a.m.
At that time, the report said Flinchum told Steger “that two students were critically wounded, that no weapon was found, that there were bloody footprints, and that the incident seemed to be domestic in nature. Chief Flinchum did not offer a recommendation about an alert or closing the campus at that time nor was he asked his opinion about doing so.”
Police on scene had not yet interviewed Hilscher’s roommate, from identified Thornhill as a person of interest.
From this information, the report adds that the Policy Group did not delay issuing an alert because of the person of interest, as they did not have that information.
However, another correction states that after being informed Thornhill was a person of interest, the Policy Group was never told he was cleared. A test for gunfire residue on Thornhill had to be taken to a lab for analysis, and did not produce results on scene.
Thornhill was told Hilscher was shot, but not that she was severely wounded. He was given no further information about his girlfriend.
An addition to the revised report detailed the university’s failure to issue a timely notice to Hilscher’s family.
The report said the university knew her identity around 8:15 a.m. from interviewing her roommate. Hilscher lived about three hours following the 7:15 a.m. shooting.
Her family was informed Hilscher was a victim from Thornhill’s mother. They were unable to receive any update of her condition from hospitals because hospital personnel did not want to disclose information.
DISCOVERY OF CHO’S RECORDS
Miller’s discovery of Cho’s records is also corrected. The original report said “ultimately all records that were requested (from Virginia Tech) and still existed were provided.”
“At the time, Cho’s file at the Cook Counseling Center was missing,” the revised report said. “An extensive search by Virginia Tech, including contact with the previous CCC director, Dr. Miller, did not turn up the file, and no one knew if it still existed. The file was found two years later by Dr. Miller in his home in response to a discovery request by attorneys involved in a lawsuit.”
Miller was not included on the original report’s list of interviewees.
A correction in the revised report said further information was brought to light by the discovered documents, showing a lack of attention to red flags in Cho’s mental health history.
“The finding that there was lack of adequate attention by Virginia Tech to the red flags raised by Cho’s actions is reinforced by further examination of communications among faculty and Virginia Tech staff,” the report said. “The Review Panel faulted Virginia Tech for not connecting the dots. Since then, more unconnected ‘dots’ have come to light.”
Specific examples include female students complaining about Cho’s odd behavior. He is believed to have continually made unwanted attempts to contact a female student in East Campbell Hall in December 2005, writing Shakespeare quotes on a whiteboard outside her room and instant messaging her.
However, in a response to a comment on the revisions, the revised report downplays the importance of the Cook Counseling Center records found in July.
“The papers in the file on Cho provided very little information that the Review Panel did not already have,” the report said.
It continued to cite earlier medical records as being more helpful in “connecting the dots.”
“The records from practitioners who treated Cho before he attended Virginia Tech are far more informative and relevant than the intake forms in Cho’s file from CCC,” the report said.
Other papers, submitted to the police by Professor Bob Hicok, were also examined for the first time as part of the revision. The Virginia State Police did not release the papers to the panel in the original investigation because they were part of their investigation file.
The papers included a play that “described an anguished student’s internal dialogue as he contemplates shooting students in a classroom.”
The report also responds to families’ allegations that the university hindered the report by appointing former official Lenwood McCoy as the point of contact for all university personnel in regards to the original Review Panel.
“Some victims’ families questioned whether Virginia Tech should be characterized as ‘extremely cooperative’ with the Review Panel, and whether having a point of contact to obtain information and arrange interviews was a barrier imposed by Virginia Tech,” the report said. “In fact, it was the Review Panel staff that requested a point of contact to facilitate such things as finding and scheduling Virginia Tech faculty and staff for interviews.”
The same clarification also said some university employees were “guarded” in discussions with the panel.