BoysCherries - Response to Dean
Fri, Jul20, 2007 - Category: School of
Law
Yesterday, AMSL Dean Bernard Dobranski released a
statement to the Law School community. In it, the
Dean admits to the School's direct interaction with
Fr. Thomas. He also levies strong accusations, though
never mentions AveWatch. As such, AW responds.
UPDATE, 7/21/2007 - Fox News Detroit, AMSL story
UPDATE, 7/21/2007 - Fox News Detroit, AMSL story
AveWatch is glad that Dean Dobranski finally stepped
forward to admit to, and describe, the Law School's
interaction with Fr. Thomas. A full copy of his
statement can be found by scrolling down the page,
below the horizontal line.
AveWatch offers several comments using excerpts from the statement.
Excerpts:
[Dean's statement in italics; AveWatch comments in plain text]
Dobranski:
Over the past several years there have been many damaging, false accusations concerning the Law School, its administration, and its Board. I usually do not respond to these accusations, but the most recent ones are so false, venomous, and defamatory that I must address them in some detail.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean. The question, for AveWatch, is if the Dean is referring to AW as the source for "false, venomous, and defamatory" accusations? AW is never mentioned by name. Ave Maria did not send a copy of the Dean's statement to AveWatch. AW has never been accused of making specific "false, venomous, and defamatory" statements by Ave Maria. They have our email address; we're easy to contact via the website. It would be utterly incorrect for readers to assume that the Dean is referencing AveWatch.
Dobranski:
The basic allegation, in essence, is that the Law School, particularly through its Chaplain, Fr. Michael Orsi, participated in helping a local Priest, who allegedly was accessing pornography on his computer, including possibly child pornography, to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive from his computer.
AW:
It has never been the basic allegation of AveWatch that "Fr. Michael Orsi participated in helping a local Priest.. to 'clean', 'scrub', 'alter' and/or 'remove' the hard drive from his computer". Two days ago, Dean Dobranski even admitted that AveWatch "belied" another publication's use of the word "scrub" to describe what happened [PDF]. The basic allegation of AveWatch has always been that Law School IT resources were offered by Fr. Orsi to help Fr. Thomas. Repeatedly, AveWatch called for the Law School to confirm or deny this and state the nature of the help provided. Dean Dobranski confirmed that help yesterday. Recall that AW's original post centered on whether an offer to use AMSL resources, including staff, would violate the Dean's "appropriate use" rubric for School resources. That post also plainly stated that AW made no accusation of illegal behavior on the part of AMSL. To perpetuate the notion that allegations of criminal behavior and "scrubbing" are originating from AveWatch is to be wrong, and is to create straw-men. The Dean, however, never cites AW or any other specific group as the source of such allegations.
AW's only reference to "cleaning" came from a statement released by two parishioners: "Fr. Thomas told us that he was having someone at Ave Maria help him replace his hard drive. He didn't tell us who, and he didn't tell us which Ave Maria entity, and we didn't ask. Fr. Thomas also spoke about 'getting a new brain' for his computer at his homily in that Mass."
Dobranski:
Further, no Law School employee - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - ever handled, touched, or possessed the Priest's hard drive or computer. Any accusations to the contrary are false and completely unfounded.
AW:
AveWatch never made any such accusations. AveWatch clearly cited the state police report in which an Ave Maria College employee was said to have been in direct possession of the priest's hard drive for some period. Again, for AveWatch, this is a straw-man.
Dobranski:
Briefly, this is what really happened. In late September 2005, the local Priest met with his Bishop about allegations that the Priest had been engaged in viewing internet pornography. During that meeting, the Priest reportedly was advised to remove "offensive material" from his computer. Later that same day, the Priest telephoned our Chaplain, who he previously knew, to advise him of the meeting with the Bishop and the allegations made against him, to proclaim his innocence, and to ask our Chaplain questions regarding the operations of a computer so that the Priest could establish his innocence of the charges. The Chaplain, unable to answer questions about computers, then asked a member of the Law School IT staff to talk to the Priest about how computers operate. At no time, however, did this conversation relate to cleaning, scrubbing, or otherwise replacing the hard drive. To the contrary, the conversation was about how information could be preserved on the computer hard drive – information which the Priest apparently believed would establish his innocence and might be lost forever if he took the advice he was given at the meeting to remove items from his hard drive – and not how to get rid of the information. In other words, both our Chaplain and the IT employee were under the impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity, and not in destroying or altering that record. To this end, the IT employee advised the Priest to seek technical assistance from the Diocese in preserving a record of his internet usage.
AW:
The Dean admits that computer-related help was offered directly to Fr. Thomas through Law School Chaplain Orsi. This was AW's central allegation; AW was shown to be correct.
The distinction between "removing" and "preserving" information, however, is weak. They are two sides of the exact same issue. Information about data 'preservation' unavoidably also describes how data 'can or cannot be removed'. For example, one could ask, "Can image files be completely preserved on my computer?" Or one could ask, "Is my Internet history preserved so as 'not to be lost forever' on my computer?" One arrives at the same end-point by asking, "Can files, or my Internet history, ever be completely removed and 'lost forever'?" In the realm of computers, to ask if data can be completely preserved is no different than asking if data cannot be permanently removed. One is "six", the other "a half dozen".
Computer professionals know that files are "preserved" to some degree on a hard drive even after they're deleted. The question remains - Did the information offered by AMSL on "preservation" of data ultimately convince Fr. Thomas' to later swap-out the entire pornographic hard drive for a brand new drive? That swapping intentionally frustrated and delayed the state police investigation, to the point where a search warrant had to be secured for the original drive. The consultative computer services offered by the Law School may have been innocent enough; the issue, however, is the manner in which that consultation might have been used by Fr. Thomas and influenced subsequent events.
If Fr. Thomas thought that following the advice to "remove offensive material" would put his proof of innocence in jeopardy, the solution was simple common sense - don't remove the material. Better yet, seal the computer immediately and hand it to authorities. Instead, he chose to remove the hard drive from the protective computer case, pass the hard drive through multiple hands, allow it to be kept by someone at the College, and have it subjected to shipment in the mail - all this before giving the hard drive to the police. What kind of nutty strategy is that for someone whose foremost interest is the "preservation" of data on a sensitive hard drive.. data purported to "establish innocence" from serious charges? It is difficult to believe that, after reviewing the police reports, one would still find such a strategy consistent with an "impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity". Yet, as the Dean will cite later in his statement, "the Law School had no obligation to report [to the police]... particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest' computer usage." The conversation with IT staff about data preservation was not consistent with Fr. Thomas' subsequent behavior, in AW's estimation.
Dobranski:
Furthermore, and to the best of our knowledge, at the time that this conversation occurred there was no active police investigation involving the Priest. In fact, the Priest was told in the meeting with the Bishop, before his telephone conversation with our Chaplain and the IT employee, that county law enforcement officials, who had been asked to investigate the matter, would not be investigating it any further.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean's statement that "to the best of our knowledge" there was no police investigation. The question, though, is how good was that knowledge at that time? The Dean attempts to strengthen the position that AMSL did not know about an "active police investigation" by citing the Priest's statement that no further investigation would be conducted by "county law enforcement officials". If you read that and assumed that the case was dropped by law enforcement, you were wrong. The county prosecutor was not "investigating any further" because he passed the case up to state investigators, as documented in the first state police report. The Dean makes AveWatch's point nicely - that AMSL did not have full knowledge about the police investigation. AMSL should have gone the police, and gone early, in our estimation.
The first contact that the Diocese had with Fr. Thomas about the pornography must have happened prior to September 13, 2005. Why? The first police report, filed on that date, cited that contact between the Diocese and Thomas had occurred. The Dean states that Fr. Thomas asked "questions regarding the operation of a computer" to Fr. Orsi, and that these questions came on the same day that Thomas "met with the Bishop about allegations". The Dean, however, puts that contact "in late September 2005". It is indisputable that the state police started their investigation on September 13, 2005, after the Bishop informed Thomas of his concerns. Also, it is indisputable that AMSL's help was offered after the Bishop's contact with Thomas, which initiated a diocesan investigation.
Dobranski:
The allegation was initially brought to my attention by a Law School employee in December 2005, and I investigated it immediately. Despite the fact that I was satisfied after my own investigation that there was no wrongdoing by anyone at the Law School, I decided that an independent investigation would be desirable because of the seriousness of the matter involved.
AW:
The larger question is not whether the Law School was involved in "wrongdoing" but whether the School offered any help or service that might have influenced events or data in a state police investigation.. an investigation that the School did not have full knowledge about. Such determinations can only be made by reporting to the police. AveWatch has consistently asked why nobody at Ave Maria bothered to go to the police.
Dobranski:
Partners of the firm conducted for us an investigation in December 2005 and January 2006. After a thorough investigation, the investigators confirmed the facts I stated above and they also made several other findings. First, the hard drive on the Priest’s computer had been replaced with a new one, and the old one given to someone else purportedly for safekeeping. None of these actions involved anyone at the Law School. Second, the original hard drive was turned over to the State Police. To the best information of the investigators, there was no evidence that the original hard drive was cleaned, scrubbed, or otherwise altered; rather, it was maintained intact. Finally, the outside investigation disclosed that the local Priest was advised in early October 2005, more than two weeks after his phone conversation with Law School personnel, that the Michigan Attorney General's office had begun an investigation. On November 30, 2005, the Diocese apparently was notified by the State Police that after its examination of the hard drive that had been removed, it would not be proceeding with a criminal prosecution, and the Diocese informed the local Priest of this the next day.
AW:
If AveWatch understands this correctly, the Dean is stating, in a nutshell, that Butzel-Long secured and reviewed the police reports through January 2006. The facts that the Dean cites about the hard drive are "old news"; they're found in the police reports.. and they're the same facts cited by AveWatch. AveWatch, like the Dean, stated that there would be no criminal prosecution of Fr. Thomas (due, in part, to the location of images in an unallocated unprosecutable sector). This was never in dispute.
Dobranski:
I make no judgment and express no opinion about whether the local Priest committed a crime or accessed pornography. This was not the purpose of our investigation. Rather, I directed the investigators to determine whether anyone at the Law School had done anything illegal or improper, and whether we had an obligation to report anything to the authorities. The investigators determined that no Law School employee had done anything illegal or improper. They also determined that the relevant authorities and entities – the State Police and the Diocese – had all the relevant information at the time that our investigation was conducted. The State Police were aware that the original hard drive was replaced, and they had the opportunity to examine both the old and new hard drives, before any decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation. Likewise, the Diocese was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the allegations made against the local Priest. For all of these reasons, the investigators advised me that the Law School had no obligation to report the innocuous September 2005 phone conversation about how computers track internet usage, particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest’s computer usage.
AW:
If AveWatch understands this correctly, the Dean's use of "the investigators" here refers to their law firm, Butzel-Long, not the the police. Presumably, after reviewing the same police reports that AveWatch also read and cited, Butzel-Long concluded that "the Law School had no obligation to report" (AW assumes that the Dean meant "report to the police". Citing the object that receives the report is not an insignificant point and should have been clearly stated.) The Dean did not address whether Butzel "advised" the Law School to report to the police; one may not be "obligated" to report, but still "advised" to report. Regardless, the issue of "obligation" is embedded into AveWatch's oft-asked question "Why didn't Ave Maria go to the police?" The Dean has now told us why - because their lawyers said that they didn't have to. The Dean's return to the distinction between "maintaining/destroying" computer data rings just as hollow as the earlier attempt to dissociate data "preservation/removal". From the start, AveWatch's position has been this - that Ave Maria should have reported to the police if any help was provided. Prudence and common practice prompted such reporting.
The Dean's knowledge of events, and Butzel-Long's conclusion concerning "obligation", came after the state police closed their investigation. AMSL Chaplain Fr. Orsi, however, was involved from the earliest stages. Had he gone to Dean Dobranski in September, rather than waiting for "a Law School employee" to bring matters to the Dean's attention in December, the assessment of "obligation" may have been quite different. Was this delay in reporting by Chaplain Orsi found to be acceptable to the Dean? Fr. Orsi's decision in this matter warrants scrutiny. State police deserved an opportunity denied to them - the ability to make their own determinations of Ave Maria's influence on Fr. Thomas' behavior, the ensuing events, and the evidence in the case, all while the investigation was ongoing. By virtue of his long-time relationship with Fr. Thomas, it is questionable whether Fr. Orsi was in a position to make an unbiased evaluation of matters. Fr. Orsi chose to involve the Law School IT staff in a serious matter unrelated to AMSL. He chose to not immediately report to the Dean. These choices put the Law School in a very awkward position, at risk for serious injury. The Dean should consider this foremost in his injury assessment.
The Dean labels the "phone conversation about how computers track internet usage" as "innocuous". Fine. Yet, the IT staff's conversation could have been the strongest determining factor in Fr. Thomas' not-so-innocuous decision to swap-out and conceal his hard drive from police. If Fr. Thomas understood that data is preserved, to a large degree, on hard drives - and if he believed that the data on the drive would prove him innocent - then there would be no reason to swap-out the drive, pass it around, mail it, and risk drive damage. The vile "internet usage" that was ultimately found "preserved" on that hard drive was degrading to human dignity and clearly not "innocuous". The help provided by Ave Maria should not be underestimated as a factor among all the determining factors in the story's events.
Dobranski:
In closing, I want to emphasize that these most recent accusations against the Law School and its employees are incredibly serious and reckless, particularly when made in an attempt to link an innocent Priest such as our Chaplain with accusations involving possible child pornography.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean; but, it is impossible to know what "recent accusations" the Dean is referring to, and who made these accusations. Maybe the Dean is referring to websites or journalists other than AveWatch. The Dean was quick to correct a recent magazine's use of the word "scrub" in connection with AMSL. Ave Maria officials had the original AveWatch "BoysCherries" story for one week prior to publication on the web. AveWatch has never received any communication from Ave Maria citing a specific error, requesting a correction, demanding a retraction, or claiming defamation or reckless disregard for truth. We, too, want the truth. We're easy to contact, and reasonable. Confined to the context of AW's reporting, the Dean's statement consists largely of "old news" and straw-man accusations never levied by AveWatch.
Chaplain Orsi offered the computer services of the Law School to a local priest. That priest, Fr. Thomas, was investigated by state police and the Diocese for child pornography. AW does not know what the Dean could possibly mean by "an attempt to link.. our Chaplain with accusations involving child pornography"? It would be an utterly false and vicious straw-man to claim that AW accused Fr. Orsi of personally consuming child pornography.
The Dean confirmed and answered the central issues that AveWatch noted from the start:
This is a serious and legitimate issue that involves a Catholic legal endeavor. It is worthy of discussion.
UNEDITED STATEMENT FROM DEAN DOBRANSKI, AS RECEIVED FROM AN AVEWATCH READER
From: Rice, Sarah on behalf of Dobranski, Bernard
Sent: Fri 7/20/2007 12:22 PM
To: All Law System Distribution; All Alumni
Cc:
Subject: Letter to the Community
July 20, 2007
Over the past several years there have been many damaging, false accusations concerning the Law School, its administration, and its Board. I usually do not respond to these accusations, but the most recent ones are so false, venomous, and defamatory that I must address them in some detail.
The basic allegation, in essence, is that the Law School, particularly through its Chaplain, Fr. Michael Orsi, participated in helping a local Priest, who allegedly was accessing pornography on his computer, including possibly child pornography, to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive from his computer.
This outrageous allegation is absolutely and unequivocally false. Specifically, no employee of the Law School - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - was involved in the "cleaning," "scrubbing," or "removing" of the local Priest’s computer hard drive. Moreover, there was never any conversation between the Priest in question and our Chaplain or any other Law School employee about how to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive, or to assist in such efforts. Further, no Law School employee - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - ever handled, touched, or possessed the Priest's hard drive or computer. Any accusations to the contrary are false and completely unfounded.
I want to emphasize that the above statements are based on facts disclosed to me during my initial investigation of the matter, and during two investigations directed by me and conducted by outside counsel. They are also based on facts reported to me from investigations conducted by multiple law enforcement authorities, the local Diocese, and the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Briefly, this is what really happened. In late September 2005, the local Priest met with his Bishop about allegations that the Priest had been engaged in viewing internet pornography. During that meeting, the Priest reportedly was advised to remove "offensive material" from his computer. Later that same day, the Priest telephoned our Chaplain, who he previously knew, to advise him of the meeting with the Bishop and the allegations made against him, to proclaim his innocence, and to ask our Chaplain questions regarding the operations of a computer so that the Priest could establish his innocence of the charges. The Chaplain, unable to answer questions about computers, then asked a member of the Law School IT staff to talk to the Priest about how computers operate. At no time, however, did this conversation relate to cleaning, scrubbing, or otherwise replacing the hard drive. To the contrary, the conversation was about how information could be preserved on the computer hard drive – information which the Priest apparently believed would establish his innocence and might be lost forever if he took the advice he was given at the meeting to remove items from his hard drive – and not how to get rid of the information. In other words, both our Chaplain and the IT employee were under the impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity, and not in destroying or altering that record. To this end, the IT employee advised the Priest to seek technical assistance from the Diocese in preserving a record of his internet usage. Furthermore, and to the best of our knowledge, at the time that this conversation occurred there was no active police investigation involving the Priest. In fact, the Priest was told in the meeting with the Bishop, before his telephone conversation with our Chaplain and the IT employee, that county law enforcement officials, who had been asked to investigate the matter, would not be investigating it any further.
I can respond to these accusations directly and without equivocation because of the prompt and prudent steps that were institutionally undertaken by the Law School when I first learned about this matter. The allegation was initially brought to my attention by a Law School employee in December 2005, and I investigated it immediately. Despite the fact that I was satisfied after my own investigation that there was no wrongdoing by anyone at the Law School, I decided that an independent investigation would be desirable because of the seriousness of the matter involved. To that end, the Law School contracted with the Butzel Long law firm, one of the largest and most respected law firms in the state and a firm which has represented the Law School in the past. This law firm is very experienced in conducting investigations for corporations and academic institutions. As one example, this is the same law firm that recently was contracted by Eastern Michigan University to investigate the University’s reporting of a campus murder, and whose investigation established that the reporting was not properly made.
Partners of the firm conducted for us an investigation in December 2005 and January 2006. After a thorough investigation, the investigators confirmed the facts I stated above and they also made several other findings. First, the hard drive on the Priest’s computer had been replaced with a new one, and the old one given to someone else purportedly for safekeeping. None of these actions involved anyone at the Law School. Second, the original hard drive was turned over to the State Police. To the best information of the investigators, there was no evidence that the original hard drive was cleaned, scrubbed, or otherwise altered; rather, it was maintained intact. Finally, the outside investigation disclosed that the local Priest was advised in early October 2005, more than two weeks after his phone conversation with Law School personnel, that the Michigan Attorney General's office had begun an investigation. On November 30, 2005, the Diocese apparently was notified by the State Police that after its examination of the hard drive that had been removed, it would not be proceeding with a criminal prosecution, and the Diocese informed the local Priest of this the next day. As I indicated earlier, I first became aware of the September telephone call by the local Priest to the Law School in December 2005. Thus, to our best information, there was no criminal investigation occurring at the time I learned of the September call.
I make no judgment and express no opinion about whether the local Priest committed a crime or accessed pornography. This was not the purpose of our investigation. Rather, I directed the investigators to determine whether anyone at the Law School had done anything illegal or improper, and whether we had an obligation to report anything to the authorities. The investigators determined that no Law School employee had done anything illegal or improper. They also determined that the relevant authorities and entities – the State Police and the Diocese – had all the relevant information at the time that our investigation was conducted. The State Police were aware that the original hard drive was replaced, and they had the opportunity to examine both the old and new hard drives, before any decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation. Likewise, the Diocese was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the allegations made against the local Priest. For all of these reasons, the investigators advised me that the Law School had no obligation to report the innocuous September 2005 phone conversation about how computers track internet usage, particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest’s computer usage.
In December 2006, I learned that the individual who made the original allegations against the local Priest with the Diocese had filed a Request for Investigation of the Priest’s attorney with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. The Request related to the attorney's role in the handling of the Priest’s hard drive. I immediately asked the investigators who conducted our original investigation to look into the matter and determine whether any of the allegations made or materials submitted to the Grievance Commission in any way impacted on the conclusions that were reached in our previous investigation, conducted almost one year earlier. After investigating these additional matters, the investigators concluded that there was nothing in the later allegations or related materials that altered the original conclusion that no one at the Law School assisted the Priest in cleansing or otherwise altering his hard drive, or engaged in any other type of misconduct. They also indicated that they would re-visit the matter again if some action were to be taken against the attorney. It is now my understanding that the Grievance Commission has decided not to pursue the matter.
In closing, I want to emphasize that these most recent accusations against the Law School and its employees are incredibly serious and reckless, particularly when made in an attempt to link an innocent Priest such as our Chaplain with accusations involving possible child pornography. Much damage has been done to the reputation of the Law School over the past few years, and increasingly damage is now being done to the reputations of good and honorable people. I urge all those involved to cease engaging in senseless personal attacks because of the serious damage they inflict upon the Law School and members of our community.
AveWatch offers several comments using excerpts from the statement.
Excerpts:
[Dean's statement in italics; AveWatch comments in plain text]
Dobranski:
Over the past several years there have been many damaging, false accusations concerning the Law School, its administration, and its Board. I usually do not respond to these accusations, but the most recent ones are so false, venomous, and defamatory that I must address them in some detail.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean. The question, for AveWatch, is if the Dean is referring to AW as the source for "false, venomous, and defamatory" accusations? AW is never mentioned by name. Ave Maria did not send a copy of the Dean's statement to AveWatch. AW has never been accused of making specific "false, venomous, and defamatory" statements by Ave Maria. They have our email address; we're easy to contact via the website. It would be utterly incorrect for readers to assume that the Dean is referencing AveWatch.
Dobranski:
The basic allegation, in essence, is that the Law School, particularly through its Chaplain, Fr. Michael Orsi, participated in helping a local Priest, who allegedly was accessing pornography on his computer, including possibly child pornography, to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive from his computer.
AW:
It has never been the basic allegation of AveWatch that "Fr. Michael Orsi participated in helping a local Priest.. to 'clean', 'scrub', 'alter' and/or 'remove' the hard drive from his computer". Two days ago, Dean Dobranski even admitted that AveWatch "belied" another publication's use of the word "scrub" to describe what happened [PDF]. The basic allegation of AveWatch has always been that Law School IT resources were offered by Fr. Orsi to help Fr. Thomas. Repeatedly, AveWatch called for the Law School to confirm or deny this and state the nature of the help provided. Dean Dobranski confirmed that help yesterday. Recall that AW's original post centered on whether an offer to use AMSL resources, including staff, would violate the Dean's "appropriate use" rubric for School resources. That post also plainly stated that AW made no accusation of illegal behavior on the part of AMSL. To perpetuate the notion that allegations of criminal behavior and "scrubbing" are originating from AveWatch is to be wrong, and is to create straw-men. The Dean, however, never cites AW or any other specific group as the source of such allegations.
AW's only reference to "cleaning" came from a statement released by two parishioners: "Fr. Thomas told us that he was having someone at Ave Maria help him replace his hard drive. He didn't tell us who, and he didn't tell us which Ave Maria entity, and we didn't ask. Fr. Thomas also spoke about 'getting a new brain' for his computer at his homily in that Mass."
Dobranski:
Further, no Law School employee - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - ever handled, touched, or possessed the Priest's hard drive or computer. Any accusations to the contrary are false and completely unfounded.
AW:
AveWatch never made any such accusations. AveWatch clearly cited the state police report in which an Ave Maria College employee was said to have been in direct possession of the priest's hard drive for some period. Again, for AveWatch, this is a straw-man.
Dobranski:
Briefly, this is what really happened. In late September 2005, the local Priest met with his Bishop about allegations that the Priest had been engaged in viewing internet pornography. During that meeting, the Priest reportedly was advised to remove "offensive material" from his computer. Later that same day, the Priest telephoned our Chaplain, who he previously knew, to advise him of the meeting with the Bishop and the allegations made against him, to proclaim his innocence, and to ask our Chaplain questions regarding the operations of a computer so that the Priest could establish his innocence of the charges. The Chaplain, unable to answer questions about computers, then asked a member of the Law School IT staff to talk to the Priest about how computers operate. At no time, however, did this conversation relate to cleaning, scrubbing, or otherwise replacing the hard drive. To the contrary, the conversation was about how information could be preserved on the computer hard drive – information which the Priest apparently believed would establish his innocence and might be lost forever if he took the advice he was given at the meeting to remove items from his hard drive – and not how to get rid of the information. In other words, both our Chaplain and the IT employee were under the impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity, and not in destroying or altering that record. To this end, the IT employee advised the Priest to seek technical assistance from the Diocese in preserving a record of his internet usage.
AW:
The Dean admits that computer-related help was offered directly to Fr. Thomas through Law School Chaplain Orsi. This was AW's central allegation; AW was shown to be correct.
The distinction between "removing" and "preserving" information, however, is weak. They are two sides of the exact same issue. Information about data 'preservation' unavoidably also describes how data 'can or cannot be removed'. For example, one could ask, "Can image files be completely preserved on my computer?" Or one could ask, "Is my Internet history preserved so as 'not to be lost forever' on my computer?" One arrives at the same end-point by asking, "Can files, or my Internet history, ever be completely removed and 'lost forever'?" In the realm of computers, to ask if data can be completely preserved is no different than asking if data cannot be permanently removed. One is "six", the other "a half dozen".
Computer professionals know that files are "preserved" to some degree on a hard drive even after they're deleted. The question remains - Did the information offered by AMSL on "preservation" of data ultimately convince Fr. Thomas' to later swap-out the entire pornographic hard drive for a brand new drive? That swapping intentionally frustrated and delayed the state police investigation, to the point where a search warrant had to be secured for the original drive. The consultative computer services offered by the Law School may have been innocent enough; the issue, however, is the manner in which that consultation might have been used by Fr. Thomas and influenced subsequent events.
If Fr. Thomas thought that following the advice to "remove offensive material" would put his proof of innocence in jeopardy, the solution was simple common sense - don't remove the material. Better yet, seal the computer immediately and hand it to authorities. Instead, he chose to remove the hard drive from the protective computer case, pass the hard drive through multiple hands, allow it to be kept by someone at the College, and have it subjected to shipment in the mail - all this before giving the hard drive to the police. What kind of nutty strategy is that for someone whose foremost interest is the "preservation" of data on a sensitive hard drive.. data purported to "establish innocence" from serious charges? It is difficult to believe that, after reviewing the police reports, one would still find such a strategy consistent with an "impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity". Yet, as the Dean will cite later in his statement, "the Law School had no obligation to report [to the police]... particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest' computer usage." The conversation with IT staff about data preservation was not consistent with Fr. Thomas' subsequent behavior, in AW's estimation.
Dobranski:
Furthermore, and to the best of our knowledge, at the time that this conversation occurred there was no active police investigation involving the Priest. In fact, the Priest was told in the meeting with the Bishop, before his telephone conversation with our Chaplain and the IT employee, that county law enforcement officials, who had been asked to investigate the matter, would not be investigating it any further.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean's statement that "to the best of our knowledge" there was no police investigation. The question, though, is how good was that knowledge at that time? The Dean attempts to strengthen the position that AMSL did not know about an "active police investigation" by citing the Priest's statement that no further investigation would be conducted by "county law enforcement officials". If you read that and assumed that the case was dropped by law enforcement, you were wrong. The county prosecutor was not "investigating any further" because he passed the case up to state investigators, as documented in the first state police report. The Dean makes AveWatch's point nicely - that AMSL did not have full knowledge about the police investigation. AMSL should have gone the police, and gone early, in our estimation.
The first contact that the Diocese had with Fr. Thomas about the pornography must have happened prior to September 13, 2005. Why? The first police report, filed on that date, cited that contact between the Diocese and Thomas had occurred. The Dean states that Fr. Thomas asked "questions regarding the operation of a computer" to Fr. Orsi, and that these questions came on the same day that Thomas "met with the Bishop about allegations". The Dean, however, puts that contact "in late September 2005". It is indisputable that the state police started their investigation on September 13, 2005, after the Bishop informed Thomas of his concerns. Also, it is indisputable that AMSL's help was offered after the Bishop's contact with Thomas, which initiated a diocesan investigation.
Dobranski:
The allegation was initially brought to my attention by a Law School employee in December 2005, and I investigated it immediately. Despite the fact that I was satisfied after my own investigation that there was no wrongdoing by anyone at the Law School, I decided that an independent investigation would be desirable because of the seriousness of the matter involved.
AW:
The larger question is not whether the Law School was involved in "wrongdoing" but whether the School offered any help or service that might have influenced events or data in a state police investigation.. an investigation that the School did not have full knowledge about. Such determinations can only be made by reporting to the police. AveWatch has consistently asked why nobody at Ave Maria bothered to go to the police.
Dobranski:
Partners of the firm conducted for us an investigation in December 2005 and January 2006. After a thorough investigation, the investigators confirmed the facts I stated above and they also made several other findings. First, the hard drive on the Priest’s computer had been replaced with a new one, and the old one given to someone else purportedly for safekeeping. None of these actions involved anyone at the Law School. Second, the original hard drive was turned over to the State Police. To the best information of the investigators, there was no evidence that the original hard drive was cleaned, scrubbed, or otherwise altered; rather, it was maintained intact. Finally, the outside investigation disclosed that the local Priest was advised in early October 2005, more than two weeks after his phone conversation with Law School personnel, that the Michigan Attorney General's office had begun an investigation. On November 30, 2005, the Diocese apparently was notified by the State Police that after its examination of the hard drive that had been removed, it would not be proceeding with a criminal prosecution, and the Diocese informed the local Priest of this the next day.
AW:
If AveWatch understands this correctly, the Dean is stating, in a nutshell, that Butzel-Long secured and reviewed the police reports through January 2006. The facts that the Dean cites about the hard drive are "old news"; they're found in the police reports.. and they're the same facts cited by AveWatch. AveWatch, like the Dean, stated that there would be no criminal prosecution of Fr. Thomas (due, in part, to the location of images in an unallocated unprosecutable sector). This was never in dispute.
Dobranski:
I make no judgment and express no opinion about whether the local Priest committed a crime or accessed pornography. This was not the purpose of our investigation. Rather, I directed the investigators to determine whether anyone at the Law School had done anything illegal or improper, and whether we had an obligation to report anything to the authorities. The investigators determined that no Law School employee had done anything illegal or improper. They also determined that the relevant authorities and entities – the State Police and the Diocese – had all the relevant information at the time that our investigation was conducted. The State Police were aware that the original hard drive was replaced, and they had the opportunity to examine both the old and new hard drives, before any decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation. Likewise, the Diocese was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the allegations made against the local Priest. For all of these reasons, the investigators advised me that the Law School had no obligation to report the innocuous September 2005 phone conversation about how computers track internet usage, particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest’s computer usage.
AW:
If AveWatch understands this correctly, the Dean's use of "the investigators" here refers to their law firm, Butzel-Long, not the the police. Presumably, after reviewing the same police reports that AveWatch also read and cited, Butzel-Long concluded that "the Law School had no obligation to report" (AW assumes that the Dean meant "report to the police". Citing the object that receives the report is not an insignificant point and should have been clearly stated.) The Dean did not address whether Butzel "advised" the Law School to report to the police; one may not be "obligated" to report, but still "advised" to report. Regardless, the issue of "obligation" is embedded into AveWatch's oft-asked question "Why didn't Ave Maria go to the police?" The Dean has now told us why - because their lawyers said that they didn't have to. The Dean's return to the distinction between "maintaining/destroying" computer data rings just as hollow as the earlier attempt to dissociate data "preservation/removal". From the start, AveWatch's position has been this - that Ave Maria should have reported to the police if any help was provided. Prudence and common practice prompted such reporting.
The Dean's knowledge of events, and Butzel-Long's conclusion concerning "obligation", came after the state police closed their investigation. AMSL Chaplain Fr. Orsi, however, was involved from the earliest stages. Had he gone to Dean Dobranski in September, rather than waiting for "a Law School employee" to bring matters to the Dean's attention in December, the assessment of "obligation" may have been quite different. Was this delay in reporting by Chaplain Orsi found to be acceptable to the Dean? Fr. Orsi's decision in this matter warrants scrutiny. State police deserved an opportunity denied to them - the ability to make their own determinations of Ave Maria's influence on Fr. Thomas' behavior, the ensuing events, and the evidence in the case, all while the investigation was ongoing. By virtue of his long-time relationship with Fr. Thomas, it is questionable whether Fr. Orsi was in a position to make an unbiased evaluation of matters. Fr. Orsi chose to involve the Law School IT staff in a serious matter unrelated to AMSL. He chose to not immediately report to the Dean. These choices put the Law School in a very awkward position, at risk for serious injury. The Dean should consider this foremost in his injury assessment.
The Dean labels the "phone conversation about how computers track internet usage" as "innocuous". Fine. Yet, the IT staff's conversation could have been the strongest determining factor in Fr. Thomas' not-so-innocuous decision to swap-out and conceal his hard drive from police. If Fr. Thomas understood that data is preserved, to a large degree, on hard drives - and if he believed that the data on the drive would prove him innocent - then there would be no reason to swap-out the drive, pass it around, mail it, and risk drive damage. The vile "internet usage" that was ultimately found "preserved" on that hard drive was degrading to human dignity and clearly not "innocuous". The help provided by Ave Maria should not be underestimated as a factor among all the determining factors in the story's events.
Dobranski:
In closing, I want to emphasize that these most recent accusations against the Law School and its employees are incredibly serious and reckless, particularly when made in an attempt to link an innocent Priest such as our Chaplain with accusations involving possible child pornography.
AW:
AveWatch has no reason to doubt the Dean; but, it is impossible to know what "recent accusations" the Dean is referring to, and who made these accusations. Maybe the Dean is referring to websites or journalists other than AveWatch. The Dean was quick to correct a recent magazine's use of the word "scrub" in connection with AMSL. Ave Maria officials had the original AveWatch "BoysCherries" story for one week prior to publication on the web. AveWatch has never received any communication from Ave Maria citing a specific error, requesting a correction, demanding a retraction, or claiming defamation or reckless disregard for truth. We, too, want the truth. We're easy to contact, and reasonable. Confined to the context of AW's reporting, the Dean's statement consists largely of "old news" and straw-man accusations never levied by AveWatch.
Chaplain Orsi offered the computer services of the Law School to a local priest. That priest, Fr. Thomas, was investigated by state police and the Diocese for child pornography. AW does not know what the Dean could possibly mean by "an attempt to link.. our Chaplain with accusations involving child pornography"? It would be an utterly false and vicious straw-man to claim that AW accused Fr. Orsi of personally consuming child pornography.
The Dean confirmed and answered the central issues that AveWatch noted from the start:
- Was any computer help or service provided? - Yes.
- What was specifically offered or provided? - Information about how data on a computer is or is not "preserved"
- Why didn't Ave Maria report to the
police? - An internal evaluation concluded
that AMSL was not obligated to report.
This is a serious and legitimate issue that involves a Catholic legal endeavor. It is worthy of discussion.
UNEDITED STATEMENT FROM DEAN DOBRANSKI, AS RECEIVED FROM AN AVEWATCH READER
From: Rice, Sarah on behalf of Dobranski, Bernard
Sent: Fri 7/20/2007 12:22 PM
To: All Law System Distribution; All Alumni
Cc:
Subject: Letter to the Community
July 20, 2007
Over the past several years there have been many damaging, false accusations concerning the Law School, its administration, and its Board. I usually do not respond to these accusations, but the most recent ones are so false, venomous, and defamatory that I must address them in some detail.
The basic allegation, in essence, is that the Law School, particularly through its Chaplain, Fr. Michael Orsi, participated in helping a local Priest, who allegedly was accessing pornography on his computer, including possibly child pornography, to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive from his computer.
This outrageous allegation is absolutely and unequivocally false. Specifically, no employee of the Law School - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - was involved in the "cleaning," "scrubbing," or "removing" of the local Priest’s computer hard drive. Moreover, there was never any conversation between the Priest in question and our Chaplain or any other Law School employee about how to "clean," "scrub," "alter" and/or "remove" the hard drive, or to assist in such efforts. Further, no Law School employee - including our Chaplain or any IT employee - ever handled, touched, or possessed the Priest's hard drive or computer. Any accusations to the contrary are false and completely unfounded.
I want to emphasize that the above statements are based on facts disclosed to me during my initial investigation of the matter, and during two investigations directed by me and conducted by outside counsel. They are also based on facts reported to me from investigations conducted by multiple law enforcement authorities, the local Diocese, and the Attorney Grievance Commission.
Briefly, this is what really happened. In late September 2005, the local Priest met with his Bishop about allegations that the Priest had been engaged in viewing internet pornography. During that meeting, the Priest reportedly was advised to remove "offensive material" from his computer. Later that same day, the Priest telephoned our Chaplain, who he previously knew, to advise him of the meeting with the Bishop and the allegations made against him, to proclaim his innocence, and to ask our Chaplain questions regarding the operations of a computer so that the Priest could establish his innocence of the charges. The Chaplain, unable to answer questions about computers, then asked a member of the Law School IT staff to talk to the Priest about how computers operate. At no time, however, did this conversation relate to cleaning, scrubbing, or otherwise replacing the hard drive. To the contrary, the conversation was about how information could be preserved on the computer hard drive – information which the Priest apparently believed would establish his innocence and might be lost forever if he took the advice he was given at the meeting to remove items from his hard drive – and not how to get rid of the information. In other words, both our Chaplain and the IT employee were under the impression that the Priest was interested in maintaining a record of his internet activity, and not in destroying or altering that record. To this end, the IT employee advised the Priest to seek technical assistance from the Diocese in preserving a record of his internet usage. Furthermore, and to the best of our knowledge, at the time that this conversation occurred there was no active police investigation involving the Priest. In fact, the Priest was told in the meeting with the Bishop, before his telephone conversation with our Chaplain and the IT employee, that county law enforcement officials, who had been asked to investigate the matter, would not be investigating it any further.
I can respond to these accusations directly and without equivocation because of the prompt and prudent steps that were institutionally undertaken by the Law School when I first learned about this matter. The allegation was initially brought to my attention by a Law School employee in December 2005, and I investigated it immediately. Despite the fact that I was satisfied after my own investigation that there was no wrongdoing by anyone at the Law School, I decided that an independent investigation would be desirable because of the seriousness of the matter involved. To that end, the Law School contracted with the Butzel Long law firm, one of the largest and most respected law firms in the state and a firm which has represented the Law School in the past. This law firm is very experienced in conducting investigations for corporations and academic institutions. As one example, this is the same law firm that recently was contracted by Eastern Michigan University to investigate the University’s reporting of a campus murder, and whose investigation established that the reporting was not properly made.
Partners of the firm conducted for us an investigation in December 2005 and January 2006. After a thorough investigation, the investigators confirmed the facts I stated above and they also made several other findings. First, the hard drive on the Priest’s computer had been replaced with a new one, and the old one given to someone else purportedly for safekeeping. None of these actions involved anyone at the Law School. Second, the original hard drive was turned over to the State Police. To the best information of the investigators, there was no evidence that the original hard drive was cleaned, scrubbed, or otherwise altered; rather, it was maintained intact. Finally, the outside investigation disclosed that the local Priest was advised in early October 2005, more than two weeks after his phone conversation with Law School personnel, that the Michigan Attorney General's office had begun an investigation. On November 30, 2005, the Diocese apparently was notified by the State Police that after its examination of the hard drive that had been removed, it would not be proceeding with a criminal prosecution, and the Diocese informed the local Priest of this the next day. As I indicated earlier, I first became aware of the September telephone call by the local Priest to the Law School in December 2005. Thus, to our best information, there was no criminal investigation occurring at the time I learned of the September call.
I make no judgment and express no opinion about whether the local Priest committed a crime or accessed pornography. This was not the purpose of our investigation. Rather, I directed the investigators to determine whether anyone at the Law School had done anything illegal or improper, and whether we had an obligation to report anything to the authorities. The investigators determined that no Law School employee had done anything illegal or improper. They also determined that the relevant authorities and entities – the State Police and the Diocese – had all the relevant information at the time that our investigation was conducted. The State Police were aware that the original hard drive was replaced, and they had the opportunity to examine both the old and new hard drives, before any decision not to proceed with a criminal investigation. Likewise, the Diocese was fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the allegations made against the local Priest. For all of these reasons, the investigators advised me that the Law School had no obligation to report the innocuous September 2005 phone conversation about how computers track internet usage, particularly since that conversation concerned maintaining (and not destroying) a record of the Priest’s computer usage.
In December 2006, I learned that the individual who made the original allegations against the local Priest with the Diocese had filed a Request for Investigation of the Priest’s attorney with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. The Request related to the attorney's role in the handling of the Priest’s hard drive. I immediately asked the investigators who conducted our original investigation to look into the matter and determine whether any of the allegations made or materials submitted to the Grievance Commission in any way impacted on the conclusions that were reached in our previous investigation, conducted almost one year earlier. After investigating these additional matters, the investigators concluded that there was nothing in the later allegations or related materials that altered the original conclusion that no one at the Law School assisted the Priest in cleansing or otherwise altering his hard drive, or engaged in any other type of misconduct. They also indicated that they would re-visit the matter again if some action were to be taken against the attorney. It is now my understanding that the Grievance Commission has decided not to pursue the matter.
In closing, I want to emphasize that these most recent accusations against the Law School and its employees are incredibly serious and reckless, particularly when made in an attempt to link an innocent Priest such as our Chaplain with accusations involving possible child pornography. Much damage has been done to the reputation of the Law School over the past few years, and increasingly damage is now being done to the reputations of good and honorable people. I urge all those involved to cease engaging in senseless personal attacks because of the serious damage they inflict upon the Law School and members of our community.