In yesterday's Update, we highlighted the recent judicial decision against Hobart College in Geneva, NY. Part of the college's Kangaroo Court approach involved a victim-centered investigation against the accused student.

The investigation was done by a group called CSC Investigations, which openly brags about its use of a trauma-informed approach (key words in bold):

• "each of our investigators has received training in investigative interviewing, the effects of trauma, and the role that alcohol and drugs may play in incidents of alleged misconduct. CSC investigators have completed workshops at highly regarded educational institutions both in and outside of Vermont and attended the Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigation and Adjudication Institute sponsored by the National Center for Campus Public Safety."

The lawsuit claims the trauma-informed investigation (see full text, below the signature block):

1. Excluded or altered key information provided by the accused student.
2. Allowed the complainant -- but not the accused student -- to change her story to account for statements made by the accused.
3. Failed to conduct a follow-up interview of the accused student.
4. In the final investigative report, did not highlight the inconsistencies and contradictions in the students' statements.
5. Did not mention the existence of the video taken 20-30 minutes before the alleged assault showing the complainant to be awake, alert, and fully oriented.
6. Afterwards, destroyed the audio recordings of the interviews.

The lawsuit concludes, “In sum, the entirety of the report was clearly written in such a way to bolster Roe’s claims and to completely obfuscate any evidence that might tend to weaken her credibility or support Plaintiff’s version of events.”

The home page of CSC Investigations touts the Accuracy and Integrity of its work -- see image, above. But after last week's devastating ruling, CSC may need to change its website.

And feel free to send a polite email to the lead investigator, Tamara Chase: TChase@cscinvestigations.com 

Sincerely,

Edward Bartlett

+++++++++++++++++

KEY ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE CSC INVESTIGATION

Chase, a CSC employee, conduct[ed] the investigation into Roe’s complaint. (Id. at ¶ 118). Chase first interviewed Roe, then Smith, and then Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 119). Chase also interviewed three other HWS students. (Id. at ¶ 120). Plaintiff alleges that Chase audio-recorded all of these interviews but subsequently destroyed the recordings “as a matter of course.” (Id. at ¶ 121). After completing her initial round of interviews, Chase
conducted follow-up interviews with Roe and Smith, “informing them of new information that arose in the other interviews and giving them an opportunity to amend or correct their claims in light of the new information.” (Id. at ¶ 122). However, Chase never invited Plaintiff for a follow-up interview. (Id.).

Chase issued her final investigative report on February 7, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 123). The final investigative support contained summaries of Chase’s interviews with the parties and witnesses in which Chase “deliberately excluded or subtly altered information from Roe and Smith’s story that was inconsistent with the evidence/witnesses or damaged their
credibility.” (Id. at ¶ 124). “The summaries of the interviews from Roe and Smith also contained no acknowledgment or analysis of the fact that they both made statements in their interviews that contradicted each other as well as their initial claims when first filing the Title IX report.” (Id. at ¶ 126). Further, “the final investigative report made no mention of the relevance of the video evidence showing Roe awake, alert, fully oriented towards time, place, and context—and smiling and laughing—just twenty to thirty minutes after the alleged assault.” (Id. at ¶ 134). “In sum, the entirety of the report was clearly written in such a way to bolster Roe’s claims and to completely obfuscate any evidence that might tend to weaken her credibility or support Plaintiff’s version of events.” (Id. at ¶ 139).