Sexual misconduct investigator may have fabricated confession in Fresno State case

Guess what?  A State employee at Fresno State University LIED about an investigation and tried to ruin the life of a student.  This is why students need to “lawyer up”.  Government officials lie and it took an appeal to have a judge find that out.  Why hasn’t this person been fired?  Why haven’t they been arrested for filing a false report?  When will the student file suit against the Fresno State  employee and those that hired here?  It is obvious this was a hate males at any cost person.

“But it’s the investigator’s amended report that should draw concern for students who come into contact with Fresno State’s Title IX adjudication system.

The Tuesday “minute order” by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel describes the university’s investigation into a third-party complaint that “John Doe” was “putting something (not clarified what drug it was) in women’s drinks at parties … and sleeping with them.”

Two female students actually went forward with formal complaints against Doe in 2016. The first report by Erin Boele, who remains the university’s interim Title IX coordinator, found that the sex was nonconsensual because “Roe 1” was under California’s age of consent at the time and “Roe 2” was incapacitated.”

fresno state university

Sexual misconduct investigator may have fabricated confession in Fresno State case

 

Greg Piper, The College Fix,  2/8/19  

 

You would think that an admission of guilt would be included in a Title IX coordinator’s first report on a sexual misconduct investigation, or at least her notes.

You’d be really suspicious if that admission of guilt showed up in the amended version of her report – after an accused student was unexpectedly granted an appeal.

California State University-Fresno got rebuked in court this week for an unfair sexual misconduct proceeding against an accused student.

Many of the findings are based on recent legal precedents by California appeals courts that grant accused students specific due process protections when credibility is a decisive factor and they face harsh penalties.

But it’s the investigator’s amended report that should draw concern for students who come into contact with Fresno State’s Title IX adjudication system.

The Tuesday “minute order” by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Strobel describes the university’s investigation into a third-party complaint that “John Doe” was “putting something (not clarified what drug it was) in women’s drinks at parties … and sleeping with them.”

Two female students actually went forward with formal complaints against Doe in 2016. The first report by Erin Boele, who remains the university’s interim Title IX coordinator, found that the sex was nonconsensual because “Roe 1” was under California’s age of consent at the time and “Roe 2” was incapacitated.

Nine months after Doe was expelled, the CSU chancellor’s office agreed to let him appeal because Fresno State never gave him the “Notice of Investigation Outcome” by Boele or the investigation report itself, “along with the names of all complainants and witnesses.”

Why it took the university so long to figure out it never gave Doe the evidence behind his expulsion is not explained.

The second proceeding, which reaffirmed Doe’s expulsion, led to Boele’s amended report with the first-time claim that Doe told her a year earlier that he knew Roe 1 was 17, and thus unable to consent under state law. (California has no “close-in-age” exemption.)

Fresno State media relations responded to The College Fix Friday but did not answer whether the university has investigated Boele (left) for her conduct in this investigation, and why she has remained “interim” in the position for nearly three years, if not longer.

The university tried to get the case thrown out by claiming that Doe “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Judge Strobel rejected that argument, noting that Doe explicitly appealed multiple administrative findings and told the school to use his 2016 sanctions appeal for his 2018 sanctions appeal.

‘Unenrolled’ means Fresno State had no jurisdiction

Strobel threw out the findings with respect to Roe 2 because she was “unenrolled” from Fresno State at the time of the incident, as Boele’s amended report acknowledged. Under CSU systemwide procedures, the university can’t investigate complaints by students who are not currently enrolled.

In other words, Fresno State didn’t bother confirming that it had jurisdiction over one of the accusers before launching a full investigation and finding that Doe sexually assaulted her.

The university withheld crucial information from Doe throughout the first investigation, the judge found. When it told him he had been found guilty of nonconsensual sex with both women, Fresno State didn’t tell him he could appeal the decision.

At the sanctions hearing the following month, it told Doe he couldn’t question the decision because he never appealed it. When he tried to appeal after the hearing, Fresno State said it was “untimely.”

The original charges against Doe also failed to specify who claimed what, and the university alternately referred to “reports” (plural) and “report” (singular) about his sexual misconduct. He was only told that the allegations concerned nonconsensual sex with two female students on two specified dates.

Even when he was notified of the findings by Assistant Dean of Students Jamie Pontius-Hogan (right), he was not told which student was incapacitated and which was too young to consent.

After the chancellor’s office admitted in June 2017 the university’s failure to show him the report, Doe’s amended appeal the same month cited the university’s failure to let him question accusers and withholding evidence.

It was here that Doe “appeared to admit some facts regarding Roe 1, including that she ‘was four months shy of her eighteenth birthday’ in July 2015,” Strobel writes. Yet after Boele released her amended report in August, Doe’s October appeal categorically denied that he ever “told Erin Boele that I knew [Roe 1] was 17 years old when we had sex in July 2015.” (Remember: Boele interviewed him more than a year earlier.)

The ruling suggests that the chancellor’s office was referring to this “four months shy” language when it declined to reopen the Roe 1 case. Yet after it agreed to reopen the Doe 2 case, and Boele stated point-blank that Roe 2 was “unenrolled,” Fresno State still failed to acknowledge that it had no jurisdiction to investigate.

The dispute over Doe’s knowledge of Roe 1’s age was ultimately not relevant to Strobel’s ruling about the totality of Fresno State’s proceeding – because the university had misled Doe about the charges from the start.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.