by James A. Bacon
Testifying under oath several days ago in a Daily Progress lawsuit to pry open a report into the slaying of three UVA football players, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan elaborated upon his official explanation of why he decided to withhold the report until after the trial of the alleged shooter next year.
Based on the reporting of the Daily Press (admittedly, not a disinterested observer), Ryan offered multiple explanations before Judge Melvin R. Hughes in Albemarle County Circuit Court, none of which withstand scrutiny.
By way of background, here’s the justification the University offered November 23, 2023, in reversing earlier promises to make the report public:
“After conferring with counselors and Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Hingeley, we have decided that we need to wait until after the criminal proceedings to release further information. Making the reports public at this time, or even releasing a summary of their findings and recommendations, could have an impact on the criminal trial of the accused, either by disrupting the case being prepared by the Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney, or by interfering with the defendant’s right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.”
What Ryan did not reveal at the time — but The Daily Progress exposed through Freedom of Information Act queries — was that Ryan had requested the meeting with Hingeley, using University police chief Tim Longo as a go-between.
Now the newspaper is suing to get a copy of the report, which was ordered by Attorney General Jason Miyares and outsourced to the Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan law firm at a cost of $1.5 million. The Daily Progress‘ attorney Brett Spain posed the central questions: “What did UVa know before the shooting? What could UVa have done differently?”
The newspaper’s lawyers put Ryan on the stand, and his story has, to put it charitably, “evolved.”
Recounts the Daily Progress:
“There were some things that seemed not quite right, some omissions as well,” Ryan testified.
Ryan also said that he learned that one of the lawyers writing the report, Vinson & Elkins partner G. Zachary Terwilliger, made a promise to Hingeley that the report would not be released. Ryan said that Hingeley then made a case of his own that the findings could impugn witnesses and possibly lead to a change of venue for the upcoming murder trial, slated for January.
“That was simply a pretext,” countered Spain, the newspaper’s lawyer. “UVa did not like what the report said.”
Ryan denied that.
“I wasn’t really concerned about appearances or reactions,” Ryan said. “I was not worried about how it would make UVa look.”
He was, however, concerned about how the victims’ families may respond to the report, suggesting that information, omissions and inaccuracies in the report would upset them upon publication. The families have nevertheless maintained that they want to see the report released.
Assuming that the newspaper provided a fair and accurate account of Ryan’s testimony, his narrative appears to have several problems.
First, the University’s official pretext for withholding the report is questionable. Hingeley did not publicly express misgivings about the impact on his prosecution until after Ryan arranged a meeting with him, UVA drafted a press release, and submitted it to Hingely for sign-off. The initiative came from Ryan.
Second, in his testimony, Ryan brought up an entirely new justification: that there were “some things that seemed not quite right, some omissions as well.”
That doesn’t stand up either. If the UVA administration took issue with the facts or conclusions contained in the report, it could have issued a statement detailing its reservations when it released the document. The Daily Progress does not quote Ryan as testifying what his reservations were.
Third, Ryan testified that Vinson & Elkins partner G. Zachary Terwilliger, “made a promise to Hingeley that the report would not be released.”
That makes no sense. Why would an author of the report make such a promise to the Commonwealth Attorney? And if under such a restriction, why would UVA officials have said, upon receiving the report Oct. 20, 2023, that they hoped to release the document by early November?
Fourth, Ryan claimed that “Hingeley then made a case of his own that the findings could impugn witnesses and possibly lead to a change of venue for the upcoming murder trial, slated for January.”
Once again, I don’t buy it. If particular facts or findings of the report would have jeopardized the case against the alleged shooter, the University could have released a redacted version focusing on how the university failed to prevent the shooting.
Fifth and foremost, Ryan claimed he was concerned that “information, omissions and inaccuracies” in the report might upset the victims of the families.
Oh, really? The report contains not only “omissions” but “inaccuracies”? That’s an extraordinary allegation.
If so, the question naturally arises, what inaccuracies or missing context upset the families of the young men who were slain? I can imagine the report saying things about the alleged shooter that his family would find upsetting. But the families of the victims? As the newspaper observed, the victims’ families want to see the report. Why would Ryan substitute his judgment for theirs?
Spain had had a shorter, more internally consistent explanation for why Ryan might want to withhold the report: “UVa did not like what the report said.”
If Ryan made one plausible statement in his testimony, it’s this: “I was not worried about how it would make UVa look.”
I have no trouble believing that. The evidence suggests that he was worried about how the report would make him look.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.