SEATTLE — Nearly two weeks after the occupation and vandalism at the University of Washington’s Interdisciplinary Engineering Building (IEB), there have been no formal charges, and no one is talking about the status of the investigation.
UW Police arrested 34 people after self-described pro-Palestinian protestors entered the building back on May 5th.
RELATED | Pro-Palestinian protesters occupy UW campus building, demand divestment from Boeing
On Monday, the University and the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said they had no update on the investigation. The UW Police referred calls to the University Administration. The FBI and US Attorney’s Office also said they had not been contacted on the case.
Yet, changes have already been made at the IEB. Students are now being asked to badge in with their Husky cards, and new surveillance cameras have been installed outside the building.
When asked about the status of the students believed to have been involved in the demonstration, University of Washington spokesperson Dana Robinson Slote said that there were “no changes” and the “suspensions remain in place.” She added that final recommendations on charges are “pending ongoing investigation.”
ALSO SEE | UW suspends 21 students involved in pro-Palestinian protest as federal grants examined
When asked if there was surveillance video from the building that has been forwarded to police, Robinson Slote wrote, “The building does not at this time have internal security cameras.”
Former Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said on Monday that he believes this is not a “garden variety vandalism” case, including the amount of destruction, anti-Semitism claims, and the fact that “the UW is a beloved local institution. People are going to want accountability.”
MORE | University of Washington faces 3rd vandalism incident amid protests
Lindquist said he was not overly concerned that prosecutors had not made a charging decision in the case, as the circumstances are different if the arrested suspects had been jailed for an extended period of time.
“If the defendants had been held in custody, you would have seen charges quickly. Once defendants are out of custody, that gives the prosecutor more time to review the evidence, discuss it amongst their staff, and then file the charges,” Lindquist said.
