A PDF copy of the Dean's fax is available here from New Oxford Review.

Let's look at some of this statement:
[excerpts in italics; comments in plain text]

Dobranski:
"The alleged 'scrubbing' was thoroughly investigated nearly two years ago by both Ave Maria School of Law and the police."

Be careful here. Read this closely. If you conclude from this sentence that Ave Maria's involvement was investigated by the police, you would be incorrect. There is no connection between the police investigation of the hard drive and AMSL's own internal investigation of its in-house actions. Based on the police reports, state investigators never had access to any Ave Maria employee to make the state's own determinations on anything said or done by Ave Maria employees.

Why didn't Ave Maria take the results of its internal investigation to the police? That is standard practice for cases like this, is it not?

Dobranski:
"The result of the investigation revealed that no scrubbing had occurred and no one at Ave Maria School of Law had been asked to do so, much less suggested that it be done."

This sentence is a problem. Dobranski is mixing two different investigations. The police investigation concluded that the priest's pornographic hard drive was not 'scrubbed'; indeed, it was full of adult gay and (at minimum) simulated child porn. The police investigation, however, did not reveal that "no one at Ave Maria School of Law had been asked to do so [scrub]". The finding that nobody at AMSL was asked to scrub the drive may have been the conclusion of AMSL's internal investigation, but it was not the conclusion of the police as cited in the police reports. This statement by the Dean confuses the two investigations by using the singular "investigation". This is disturbing.

With regard to the police investigation, keep in mind that a search warrant was issued to get the pornographic hard drive. Why? Because that hard drive was swapped-out with a clean new hard drive, an act that intentionally caused great confusion for the state crime lab. "Scrubbing" was ultimately not an issue because something worse was happening; evidence was being kept from the police (knowingly by some). The original AW report makes clear that AMSL offered help or services to the priest during the earliest stages of the police investigation, and that some individuals at AMSL knew of the investigation during and after the help or services were provided. AMSL has never denied this. AMSL did not deny this in their fax to New Oxford Review. OK - Dean Dobranski will be believed when stating that AMSL didn't offer/ask to "scrub" the drive. The question remains - If not 'scrubbing', what did AMSL offer in terms of help or services, and why was this not reported to the police?

Keep in mind that, according to the state's crime lab, seven suspected child porn images were found in the hard drive's unallocated sector; as such, they are not prosecutable. Did AMSL offer any advice or instruction that - intentionally or unintentionally - helped get those images to that unallocated sector? One could make the case that the act of getting those images to that sector was a form of "scrubbing" (albiet not a full hard drive erasure).

It was impossible for AMSL to know, at the time, exactly what the police had on this priest because the investigation was ongoing. Just today, the New York Times reported on a new government study suggesting that 85% of Internet child porn viewers have also committed some act of sexual abuse against a minor. This is serious stuff for which no chances can be taken.

Dobranski:
"Had you simply bothered to call the priest in question, Ave Maria School of Law, or the police you would have learned these facts. Recklessly, you failed to do so."

It is utterly jaw-dropping to see Dean Dobranski lecture NOR about the recklessness of failing to contact the police.

Ave Maria School of Law and College have been anything but forthcoming to explain themselves. All they need to do is plainly answer three simple questions?

• Was any computer help/consultation/service provided?
• What specifically was offered or provided?
• Why didn't you go to the police?

Tags: boyscherries, accountability