THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff”

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff”

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the third in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

“60. In the report Weber would author almost five months later, he recounted this meeting with Plaintiff and his mother on or around May 30, 2018, and falsely reported that Plaintiff did not feel that the video of his assault was passed around much as nobody had mentioned it to Plaintiff during school. This is an outright lie.

61. Weber concluded his assessment of the evidence in Plaintiff’s case by stating “Clearly this is a hazing/bullying issue that the school properly handed.” Accordingly, Defendant Weber felt “there was no referral to be made.” Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Weber was directed to reach such a conclusion by WASD agents and employees, including Pardoe, before the CYS report was ever made.

76. Weber and WASD’s “investigation,” which included these meetings between Holland, Lepley, Pardoe, Weber, and others, resulted in a payment of $10,000 being made to Male Victim #1. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that this payment was made to Male Victim #1 by WASD employees and/or agents for the abuse to which Male Victim #1 was subject.

78. Plaintiff finished out his freshman year at WAHS but thereafter left WASD due to the repeated harassment he received after his assault during the school year and over the summer. That Plaintiff–a victim of assault–was harassed until he was forced to change schools was never addressed by WASD, despite its central role in enabling it to occur at WAHS in the first place.

79. Defendant WASD knew that Plaintiff was being called derogatory names, harassed, and bullied at school because students were able to view and share videos of his abuse. Yet, Defendant WASD did nothing to address said harassment nor discipline any students who engaged in such behavior. Therefore, WASD, through its agents, employees, teachers, administrators, and coaches not only caused the harassment to occur but also permitted it to endure.

80. The only punishment WASD imposed upon B.M., Videographer #1, and anyone else involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students, the recording of said vile acts, and the subsequent publication of those videos, was a two-game suspension from the WAHS baseball team. Both B.M. and Videographer #1 were permitted to play in Millionaires games for months after the assaults, including in the twelve-day period between when the Child Line Report was made and the suspensions were enforced.

In fact, B.M. was permitted to play in and receive gold medals

for winning the PIAA District II/IV District Championship

on May 28, 2018, after WASD learned he sexually abused a teammate.

81. Neither B.M., Videographer #1, nor any other student involved in or present for the criminal sexual abuse of Plaintiff and other students was ever brought before the WASD School Board for a disciplinary hearing for possible expulsion, in contravention to well-established WASD policies and procedures, despite the WASD Superintendent being directly notified of
conduct which would warrant such a reaction.

82. For conduct that would later be referred to as “indecent and inappropriate” by Defendant Holland and “criminal sexual misconduct” by LC District Attorney Ryan Gardner, WASD imposed virtually no punishment for those who committed it.

85. At all relevant times, Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and Weber were duly authorized actual and/or apparent agents, servants and employees of WASD and LC, respectively, and were acting within the course and scope of their actual and/or apparent agency and/or employment with their respective employers.”

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

II. The Response of WASD and LC to the Sexual Assault of Plaintiff

58. In contrast to the Defendants’ response to the assault of Male Victim #1, not a single individual from Defendants WASD or LC reached out to Plaintiff or his family in the immediate aftermath of the Child Line report. Plaintiff’s family themselves had to contact the school district by placing a call to WAHS Assistant Principal Defendant Roger Freed (“Freed”) on or about May 21, 2018. On this date, Freed denied any knowledge of the assault despite the school’s principal, Defendant Pardoe, being officially made aware of it on May 18, 2018, at the very latest.

59. On or about May 30, 2018, Defendants Pardoe, Weber, and Freed met with Plaintiff’s family at WAHS in Pardoe’s office. At this meeting, Plaintiff described what happened to him and provided Weber and Pardoe the names of those involved. Additionally, a video depicting the assault of Plaintiff in possession of the LC DA’s Office was also shown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff confirmed it was him in the video being assaulted. Pardoe and Weber then promised Plaintiff and his mother that they would get back to them—that they would first question those involved and keep them updated thereafter. Plaintiff’s family never told Weber or any employee of WASD that they did not want to press charges against those responsible for Plaintiff’s assault.

60. In the report Weber would author almost five months later, he recounted this meeting with Plaintiff and his mother on or around May 30, 2018, and falsely reported that Plaintiff did not feel that the video of his assault was passed around much as nobody had mentioned it to Plaintiff during school. This is an outright lie.

62. In notes that Defendant Weber took contemporaneous to his meeting with Plaintiff and his family—not discovered until they were obtained via a search warrant issued by the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General—he wrote that B.M. admitted to the sexual assault.

63. This meeting was the last time anyone from WASD had any contact with Plaintiff and his mother regarding the assault and the investigation into the assault.

64. On or about the same day, May 30, 2018, Defendant Pardoe also met with Videographer #1 in his office at WAHS. At this meeting, Videographer #1 admitted to filming the assault and explained what happened. Pardoe then explained to Videographer #1 that he would be suspended from the baseball team for two games because he had to deal with a consequence of what occurred. Defendant Weber never interviewed Videographer #1.

65. At some point close in time to the meeting with Videographer #1, Defendant Pardoe actually came to the home of Videographer #1’s parent(s) and met Videographer #1’s mother. Defendant Pardoe told her to please not talk about what happened, that he had the situation under control, that the case was “not going to go anywhere” and not to worry about anything. Defendant Pardoe then apologized to the mother of Videographer #1 for having her son miss two games in the baseball season.

66. Subsequent to his meeting with Videographer #1, Pardoe sent an email to WASD Superintendent Dr. Timothy Bowers (“Bowers”) informing him that the investigation “with regard to the video taken on the Myrtle Beach trip” had begun—twelve days after receiving the Child Line report from CYS.

67. In this email, Pardoe indicated that he met with Videographer #1, but he does not provide any detail about that meeting. In fact, Pardoe wrote “I can give you more information if we could talk.” Pardoe then states that he requested to meet with B.M., who he refers to as “the student that was videoed doing the act to the other student,” (referring to Plaintiff John Doe) and B.M.’s parents. Pardoe then suggests meeting with the WASD Solicitor Defendant Fred Holland (“Holland”) because B.M. appeared to be hiring an attorney to represent B.M. regarding his assault of Plaintiff and Male Victim #1. At the conclusion of this email, Pardoe says that he has a recommendation for the interim until he and Bowers could meet in person but does not elaborate further.

68. On May 31, 2018, George Lepley wrote a letter addressed to Defendants Dr. Brandon Pardoe and Sean McCann, the WAHS Athletic Director, regarding “Misconduct Myrtle Beach.” In this letter, Lepley states that he was contacted by the parents of B.M. regarding “potential criminal charges” and was now representing B.M.

69. Furthermore, Lepley wrote to Pardoe and McCann that “a substantial number of players engaged in the exact same conduct” he then described as “inappropriate.” Lepley also identified B.M. in the video of the assault. However, Lepley then threatened WASD with civil action and deposing “any and all witnesses” if his client, B.M. was criminally prosecuted for what occurred on the Myrtle Beach trip. Lepley concluded: “Our goal is to make sure that one person is not singled out for conduct committed by a substantial number of team members.”

70. Lepley then asserted that he would be present for any meeting between WAHS administrators and B.M.

71. On or about June 1, 2018, Pardoe emailed WASD Superintendent Bowers informing him that a meeting was scheduled for June 5, 2018, with B.M., his parents, and B.M.’s attorney, George Lepley. B.M.’s mother was apparently very defensive in a conversation with Pardoe and informed him that they would not meet with Pardoe without Lepley present. Pardoe also indicated that both B.M. and Videographer #1 would be suspended from baseball practice and play until WASD’s “investigation” was complete.

72. Furthermore, in his email to Bowers, Pardoe notes that both Defendant Holland and Defendant Weber had spoken to Lepley regarding the matter and that “both of these conversations went well.”

73. On or about June 4, 2018, Defendant Holland submitted an invoice for services rendered of 0.80 hours and noted that a telephone conference referred to as “Investigation” occurred on May 31, 2018. This conference call included Defendant Pardoe and Lepley.

74. On June 5, 2018, the WASD School Board was formally notified of the Myrtle Beach assaults, despite the fact that WASD and its agents, including but not limited to Pardoe, McCann, and Miller knew of the assaults immediately after they occurred. Plaintiff avers that members and agents of WASD, in fact, knew immediately about the Myrtle Beach assaults.

75. On or about July 3, 2018, Holland submitted a second invoice for a meeting he attended on June 5, 2018, regarding a voicemail left by Plaintiff’s family. That same day, Holland attended a meeting with Defendant Pardoe and Lepley at WAHS, which lasted for approximately 1.8 hours.

77. The Defendants therefore conducted some form of an unbiased and legitimate investigation only into the white victim’s abuse and, at the conclusion of that process, acknowledged wrongdoing and the need to compensate that victim. In contrast, Plaintiff’s
allegations were minimized and dismissed, as Plaintiff was kicked off the team and ostracized by WAHS until he was forced to change schools. Plaintiff avers that this disparate treatment occurred due to his race.

83. Moreover, Defendant Pardoe, in conjunction with Defendants Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and others who knew about the assault even prior to the May 18, 2018, Child Line report, conducted a biased and discriminatory investigation which included attempts to destroy evidence and silence witnesses. This conduct resulted in Defendants compensating a white victim of sexual abuse, while Plaintiff, a black victim, was immediately kicked off the baseball team, and left to be ridiculed, harassed, and bullied until he was forced to change schools and leave the school district.

84. Defendant Weber, the LC law enforcement officer in charge of investigating or, at the very least, referring the investigation to a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the matter, likewise conspired with Defendants Pardoe, Freed, Holland and others to destroy evidence, silence witnesses, and conduct a biased and discriminatory investigation against Plaintiff. In so doing, Defendants LC and Weber violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

“Part III: Material Misrepresentations Regarding the Investigation of Plaintiff’s Assault” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.