YORK COUNTY, Pa. (WHTM) — The specifics of Attorney General Josh Shapiro’s “major concerns with certain lapses and decisions” remain unclear, because they’re contained in a largely-unreleased letter from Shapiro to York County District Attorney David Sunday.

But more information about the kinds of details that could be contained in the letter — enumerating Shapiro’s concerns about how the York County Regional Police Department reacted in November to information provided by the mother of the Vicosa girls in Windsor Township, who were subsequently abducted and murdered — continue emerging.

Harold Goodman, a lawyer for Marisa Vicosa — the mother of Giana Vicosa, 7, and Aaminah Vicosa, 6 — whom investigators believe was abducted from their home and later murdered by their father, 41-year-old Robert Vicosa — said he hasn’t seen the letter either but has access to the same information gathered by Shapiro’s investigation.

One example: As previously reported, police allegedly didn’t act Sunday, Nov. 14, on a protective order issued by a judge, giving Robert Vicosa nearly an extra day to abduct the girls while — Goodman said — Marisa Vicosa was being treated at a hospital after being assaulted by Robert Vicosa and his alleged accomplice, Tia Bynum. Why?

Get daily news, weather, breaking news and alerts straight to your inbox! Sign up for the abc27 newsletters here

“Allegedly, because the chief [York Regional Police Chief Timothy Damon] thought, or Schollenberger [Lt. Ken Schollenberger] thought, that they were going to be on a school bus, give or take eight o’clock in the morning [Monday morning],” Goodman said. “And that would give them the opportunity, perhaps, to enter the premises. But the premise was never brought to Marisa’s attention. Had that simple question been asked — ‘Do your kids take the bus to school?’ — the answer was no. They are homeschooled, so they never left the property.”

Damon and Schollenberger haven’t responded to several messages seeking comment.

Goodman said the department’s first chance to protect Marisa Vicosa and her daughters was earlier Sunday afternoon, before the judge issued the order, when he says she went to police.

“Miss Vicosa indicated that she’d been raped, drugged and abducted since Friday night by [Robert] Vicosa with the assistance of his accomplice, Tia Bynum,” Goodman said.

“And you might want to ask, so what was done?” Goodman continued. “The chief and Schollenberger ordered no surveillance, which would have been easy. Did not direct that Vicosa and Bynum be arrested, clearly, on charges of battery and assault.”

Earlier this month, York County District Attorney David Sunday’s office responded to right-to-know requests by abc27 News and other media — for Shapiro’s letter to Sunday — with heavily-redacted documents, including no part of a timeline in the documents that could corroborate Goodman’s allegations. In partly denying the request, Sunday’s office cited — in part — “a record relating to or resulting in a criminal investigation.” It said the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) prevented it from providing more.

Paula Knudsen Burke, a lawyer and specialist in right-to-know law for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the redactions and partial denial were unnecessarily broad.

First, she said, there’s the fact that ever since 2008, records are presumed to be open, and the burden falls on an agency to justify why it’s not fulfilling all or part of a request.

Prior to 2008, “we, as the citizens and journalists, had to say to the government, ‘Oh, please give us this record,” Burke said. But now “that presumption is flipped. So the government has to justify to us why we shouldn’t have the record. So we have the presumption of access,” she said.

She said when there’s a strong public interest in information and little chance of the information putting anyone at risk — such as perhaps in the Vicosa case, in which the suspects are deceased — the agency has the discretion to release the records.

“Why wouldn’t that be in the public interest for the community to know what the shortcomings were and how to fix them?” Burke asked. “I can’t imagine any situation that is more grave than what happened here, and it’s confusing as to why law enforcement officials wouldn’t want the public to have a full understanding.”

She said any entity that has the letter can and should provide it.

“There’s no reason whatsoever why the York County district attorney or law enforcement officials or even the attorney general of Pennsylvania couldn’t say, ‘Public, you need to see this,'” she said.

But what if somewhere in the letter is something sensitive that could harm someone? Then redact that part of it, Burke said.

“‘We can’t tell you this certain thing — it’s a confidential informant,'” she said, characterizing what she considers a reasonable redaction. “‘We can’t tell you this thing. It’s a survivor of sexual assault, who’s a minor.’ Those are understandable…. That’s a very narrow approach, and that’s much better than saying, ‘Public, you don’t get anything’ or ‘Public, you get everything blacked out except for two sentences.'”