I believe that there are, in all probability, some facts and allegations that have not been made public, and, frankly, should not be at this time, in order to protect the victim, and the accused. I believe the reading of the article over the conclusions that the sexual nature of the incident only refers to the water/urine may not be a correct or complete understanding of the events. I applaud the Court for sealing the record, and for Newsday in not detailing the other allegations that may be out there. As is with most things, we have not heard the rest of the story. At this point, conjecture over what did or did not occur, or if it is assault or not gets nowhere. If the allegations are proven true, the perpetrators deserve everything they get plus some. If they are not, or there is not enough evidence to prove such, they will get their license and move on. However, there does not seem to be any argument that 1. something happened; 2. that something included at a minimum, water, that was "disguised or claimed to be" urine, and 3. the occurrences took place on more than one occasion, 4. the victim left the academy as a result, 5. the academy preformed an internal investigation, 6. The OIG became involved after the initial Academy investigation took place. And, finally, I believe I read that a grand jury was going to receive evidence, but I cannot find that source, so it may be rumor and not true.