Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Sexual assault in Klump Academic Center stairwell

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
PAsexual assaulttimely warninghigh confidence
Compare →
Under Investigation

Penn College Police published a sexual assault alert. Full text recovered.

Alerts
1
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Pennsylvania College of Technology
Technical College · PA
All Penn College cases →
~5,000 studentsPenn College Police Campus Alert / Timely Warning
Official alert policy
Read when and how Penn College says it will use PCT Alerts: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

1 message in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatim801 chars
Sexual Assault Reported August 31, 2016 Late this afternoon, a 20-year-old female reported to Penn College Police that she was sexually assaulted yesterday (Tuesday, August 30) between 2:30 and 3 p.m. in the west stairwell of the Klump Academic Center. She reports that she was grabbed from behind by a white male, who then forcefully fondled her. The assailant is described as roughly 6 ft. tall, of medium build, with short brown hair and a slight beard. He was wearing a leaf camo t-shirt, dark blue jeans, brown work boots, and a green baseball cap. There is a possibility that others may have passed him in the stairwell or hallways of the Academic Center prior to the attack. If anyone has seen this individual or has additional information, please contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555.
Verify this quote
Official PCT alertpct.edufind archived copies
Verbatim from official PCT archive.
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Sexual Assault Reported August 31, 2016 Late this afternoon, a 20-year-old female reported to Penn College Police that she was sexually assaulted yesterday (Tuesday, August 30) between 2:30 and 3 p.m. in the west stairwell of the Klump Academic Center. She reports that she was grabbed from behind by a white male, who then forcefully fondled her. The assailant is described as roughly 6 ft. tall, of medium build, with short brown hair and a slight beard. He was wearing a leaf camo t-shirt, dark blue jeans, brown work boots, and a green baseball cap. There is a possibility that others may have passed him in the stairwell or hallways of the Academic Center prior to the attack. If anyone has seen this individual or has additional information, please contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. From the full message only.
    5. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. No outside context used.
    6. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Clear institutional sender cue.
    12. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Source attribution is explicit.
    13. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Sender language is unambiguous.
    14. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Reads as official campus channel.
    15. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    16. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Judged present from named agency.
    17. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Agency or office is named.
    18. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Public safety sender is clear.
    19. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Official notice framing supports source.
    20. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Source element satisfies the bar.
    21. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    22. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    23. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Source present in opening framing.
    24. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Institutional voice is obvious.
    25. present: Penn College Police sexual assault alert is the source. Final independent coding concurs.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. From the full message only.
    2. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. No outside context used.
    3. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Strict rubric application.
    4. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
    5. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
    6. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
    7. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Wording is decisive here.
    8. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
    9. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
    10. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
    11. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
    12. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    13. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Judged present from named agency.
    14. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Agency or office is named.
    15. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
    16. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
    17. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
    18. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    19. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    20. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Source present in opening framing.
    21. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
    22. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
    23. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Independent review agrees.
    24. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
    25. present: Sexual assault / forceful fondling is the hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: West stairwell of the Klump Academic Center is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Wording is decisive here.
    2. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Clear institutional sender cue.
    3. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Source attribution is explicit.
    4. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Sender language is unambiguous.
    5. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Reads as official campus channel.
    6. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    7. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Judged present from named agency.
    8. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Agency or office is named.
    9. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Public safety sender is clear.
    10. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Official notice framing supports source.
    11. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Source element satisfies the bar.
    12. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    13. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    14. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Source present in opening framing.
    15. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Institutional voice is obvious.
    16. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Final independent coding concurs.
    17. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Independent review agrees.
    18. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Confirmed on re-read.
    19. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Based solely on the alert text.
    20. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. From the full message only.
    21. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. No outside context used.
    22. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Strict rubric application.
    23. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Element coded from wording alone.
    24. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Same conclusion on second look.
    25. present: Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555. Matches the public-warning test.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. From the full message only.
    18. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. No outside context used.
    19. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Tuesday August 30 between 2:30 and 3 p.m.; reported August 31. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Suspect description provided; public asked for information.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. From the full message only.
    15. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. No outside context used.
    16. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Suspect description provided; public asked for information. No ambiguity on who issued it.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official PCT archive.
Analysis

Key Findings

Complete official SA alert recovered.
Outcome
See official alert.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
    Crime Alerts and Timely Warnings - PCT
    pct.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Pennsylvania College of Technology: Sexual assault in Klump Academic Center stairwell." Incident of August 30, 2016. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-klump-stairwell-sexual-assault-2016-08-30/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
technical-collegesexual-assaultpennsylvaniaUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion