Panel: Va. Tech Failed to Respond to Cho Warning Signs

"Universities should recognize their responsibility to a young, vulnerable population and promote the sharing of information internally, and with parents, when significant circumstances pertaining to health and safety arise," the report says.

Once the shooting began, the panel found, campus police were too quick to focus on the boyfriend of Cho's first victim as a potential suspect; much too slow to inform the campus that a shooting had occurred; and hampered by their inability to rapidly send out a campuswide alert.

"The university administration failed to notify students and staff of a dangerous situation in a timely manner," the report states. "The first message sent by the university to students could have been sent at least an hour earlier and been more specific."

At the same time, the report praised campus and local police for responding quickly to the later shootings at Norris Hall (they were already gathered in large numbers at West Ambler because of the earlier shootings) and for working well together -- likely a result of joint training sessions in the past.

The panel questioned the response of an unnamed faculty member at Norris Hall who found a note containing a bomb threat that Cho attached to the doors of the building after chaining them shut.

The note warned that a bomb would go off if anyone removed the chains. University rules require reporting such threats to police immediately. But several minutes passed while the professor took the note to the dean of engineering's office on the building's third floor. Before the police could be called, the shooting began.

Federal and State Law

The report cites several problems with federal and state law that contributed to the tragedy:

A variety of Virginia Tech officials were worried about Cho, but did not share information with Cho's parents or each other because they thought federal and state privacy laws prohibited it. However the panel found that privacy laws were often misinterpreted, and would have allowed a broader conversation about his mental state.

The Virginia Tech Police Department for example, could have told university administrators and Cho's parents that Cho had been held for a commitment hearing. But police officials did not do so for fear of violating privacy regulations.

The panel found "widespread lack of understanding, conflicting practice, and laws that were poorly designed to accomplish their goals." In general, the report noted, privacy laws provide exceptions when there are concerns about public safety.

Federal gun laws should have prohibited Cho from buying firearms since he had been judged a danger to himself and ordered to undergo outpatient mental health care. However the state of Virginia was responsible for collecting the information assembled in a federal database and used to vet gun purchases.

Virginia law at the time did not require outpatient psychiatric orders to be reported; as a result, when two gun companies ran background checks on Cho, the purchases were authorized. A gubernatorial order has since closed that loophole.