The following are excerpts from a chronology of the events surrounding the alleged stalking of a summer school student prepared by the mother of the girl involved in the case:

Sunday, July 31

9 p.m. My daughter calls and reads the text of the boy's letter to me. Explains that she has given the letter to the dean of the summer school. It has been arranged that she will spend the night at one of the assistant dean's residences with a girlfriend. She is at the girlfriend's dorm and will remain there until it is convenient for the assistant dean to take her to her residence. I'm told that the boy will be spoken to that evening by another dean of the school. Later on that evening, my daughter calls to confirm that she is at the dean's residence and she will be okay for the evening. She has discovered that any Harvard key such as the one she has or the one the boy has will open the outside door of that residence.

Monday, August 1

9 a.m.: My daughter calls home again. She is scheduled to meet with Dean Elizabeth Hewitt, director of the secondary school students summer program, that morning. She expresses the desire to come home for a couple days and is somewhat distraught and fearful. After her meeting with Dean Hewitt, she called again. She was very unhappy with the meeting and seemed to get no support from the dean. She told me that the boy was scheduled to see a psychiatrist at 2 p.m. that day. At that point, I called the dean and requested a permanent room change for my daughter as well as the possibility of some counseling. The dean agreed to both requests.

I also asked what steps were being taken in my daughter's behalf regarding the boy. Dean Hewitt was very evasive and uncooperative. She couldn't tell me anything except that the boy would see the psychiatrist. Everything else was confidential. No help was offered to my daughter for her move to another dorm. She and her two friends made the move. She was moved to another freshman dorm, a single room, without a telephone. The boy's key could open the outside door of that building as well. Without any information about the boy or his whereabouts, we had to assume that he was absolutely free.

11 a.m.: I called Dean Hewitt with more questions about the boy. She was still very uncooperative. I felt she was protecting him and resenting my concern. At that point I asked her to call the police. I told her that I wanted a policeman to talk to the boy. I wanted him to be as uncomfortable as I had been for the last two days. She agreed to call the police, but stated that she could not assure me that they would go to talk to the boy. She told me that his parents had not yet been contacted. Her explanations was that they needed to write a letter of probation. Until that letter was written, they couldn't contact his parents. Her office had been too busy to write the letter.

9 p.m.: My daughter is in her new room waiting for her former roommate to arrive for a Scrabble game. Her proctor comes to the door asking if she would like to see Dean Hewitt. My daughter agrees.

Before the dean arrives, a police officer comes to my daughter's door. He asks if my daughter feels safe. She tells him, "No" soon after that, Dean Hewit arrives, asking if she had seen a police officer and what she said to him. The dean expressed dismay at what she said on the police and left immediately. The policeman returns and her former roommates to the Harvard Police Department for safekeeping. He tells her that he doesn't want her to go back on campus until the boy is arrested. My daughter and her roommates are treated with kindness compassion and concern by the first officer and all of other police personal they come in contact with. She calls home to tell me of her whereabouts, etc. At that time she said that the police have been so much nicer to her contact at Harvard. The girl remain at the station until the boy is arrested, sometimes after midnight.

Tuesday, August 2

9 a.m.: I called Dean Hewitt with several requests. I asked that she fax to me a copy of the boy's note and a copy of my daughter's statements. I asked further that she fax me a copy of the written procedures that her office follows in these types of cases. Ms. Hewitt told me that her office had no fax machine. She further stated that in any event, she would not give me the first two items, I requested. She also told me that as far as she knew there were no written procedures to follow in these types of situations. She offered me no assistance.

Ms. Hewitt told me that her office was quite busy that morning working on the situation that my daughter had started. I reminded her that it was the boy, rather than my daughter who started the situation. After I mentioned that she agreed.

I next asked her if the boy would be back on campus. I felt my daughter had a right to know if he would be. Again, Dean Hewitt avoided answering me. This was also confidential, I was told. I said it would be unfair for my daughter to be unprepared for meeting the boy on campus if that were to happen. She said it probably never would. That was as close as she came to telling me that the boy would not be back.

3 p.m.: My husband called the Harvard police for information regarding the boy's arraignment. Again my husband was given courteous and complete attention. It was clear that the police gave foremost attention to my daughter's safety and her family's concerns.

5 p.m. We received phone calls from the Cambridge Court Haison. She was looking for a way to contact my daughter and help her boy through the system." She is still without phone, I called her former roommate with the message.

Wednesday August

Cambridge Court Haison, Lucy Murry-Brown called our home in an effort to reach my daughter. She answered many of our questions and gave us the assurances that we needed regarding my daughter's safety. At that time the boy had been released to his parents and was on his way backs to California, Ms. Brown has remained in contact with our family, answering questions and helping in any ways possible.