STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

WILLIAM FORSYTH
INDEPENDENT SPECIAL COUNSEL

December 21, 2018

Status of the Independent Special Counsel’s Investigation into

Michigan State University’s Handling of the Larry Nassar Matter

On January 27, 2018, three days after MSU sports medicine physician Dr.
Larry Nassar received an effective life sentence for sexually assaulting hundreds of
young female patients, the Michigan Department of Attorney General announced
that it had opened an investigation into “systemic issues with sexual misconduct at
Michigan State University.” Attorney General Schuette appointed independent
special counsel William Forsyth to lead the investigation, with assistance from the
Michigan State Police (MSP) and members of the Attorney General’s Office.1

To date, the investigation has uncovered evidence that led to the filing of
criminal charges by the Attorney General’s Office against three individuals at MSU:
former gymnastics coach Kathie Klages, former Dean of the College of Osteopathic
Medicine William Strampel, and former President Lou Anna K. Simon. Because
those charges remain pending, the rules of professional conduct require us to exercise
considerable caution in disseminating facts that risk affecting the defendants’ rights.
Unlike other independent investigations of this nature, such as the Freeh
investigation of Penn State, our dual role as both investigator and prosecutor limits
what facts we can disclose publicly while criminal charges are pending. As a result,
this release is not intended to be a full accounting of our investigation, but rather an
overview of our general findings. What follows is a brief summary of the steps we
have taken to this point, a synopsis of facts we found, and insight into the culture of
indifference and institutional protection that existed at MSU.

1 It is important to make clear the limited scope of our investigation. We did not
investigate USA Gymnastics, Twistars, or any other local gymnastics teams with
which Nassar was affiliated. We also did not undertake a systemic review of MSU’s
compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the federal law
that prohibits public educational institutions from discriminating on the basis of sex.
The federal agency that oversees Title IX, the Department of Education, is currently
reviewing MSU’s Title IX compliance. Nor did we investigate any allegations of
sexual assault involving other MSU sports teams or colleges. Those allegations were
referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 2
December 21, 2018

Larry Nassar pleads guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct

In the fall of 2016, Attorney General Schuette charged Nassar with three
counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) for crimes perpetrated against
the daughter of a family friend, Kyle Stephens. In February 2017, Nassar was
charged with an additional twenty-two counts of CSC-I for sexual assaults he
committed in Ingham and Eaton counties against nine of his patients. On November
22, 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty to seven of those counts in Ingham County, and a
week later, he pleaded guilty to three counts in neighboring Eaton County. Nassar’s
sentencing hearings began on January 16, 2018, with hundreds of survivors giving
statements about Nassar’s abuse and the profound effect it had on their lives,
capturing the nation’s attention.

Amid the multitude of stirring accounts of how MSU’s premier sports medicine
doctor sexually abused scores of young women, the MSU Board of Trustees sent a
written request to the Attorney General asking him to investigate “MSU’s handling
of the Nassar situation.” The Board pledged that it stood “ready to fully cooperate
with [the Attorney General Office’s] review.”

MSU stonewalls the very investigation it pledged to support

Unfortunately, the University failed to live up to this pledge by: (1) issuing
misleading public statements, (2) drowning investigators in irrelevant documents,
(3) waging needless battles over pertinent documents, and (4) asserting attorney-
client privilege even when it did not apply. These actions warrant extended
discussion because they highlight a common thread we encountered throughout the
investigation into how the University handled allegations against Nassar. Both then
and now, MSU has fostered a culture of indifference toward sexual assault, motivated
by its desire to protect its reputation.

This began even before MSU asked the AG to investigate. Prior to publicly
announcing our investigation, the Attorney General’s Office asked MSU to turn over
the report detailing the internal investigation MSU conducted into its handling of the
Nassar matter. MSU had proclaimed publicly that the investigation, led by former
United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, would lead to “prompt[ and] appropriate
action in response to what [they] learn[ed] during the review.”2 In response to our
request, however, MSU revealed that Fitzgerald prepared no written report of any
findings. Mr. Fitzgerald, it turned out, was not hired to investigate for the purpose

2We note that while MSU hired Fitzgerald’s firm within weeks of firing Nassar in
September 2016, MSU’s first public statement to the MSU community about Larry
Nassar’s sexual assaults did not come until months later, on February 3, 2017.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 3
December 21, 2018

of presenting his findings to the public, as MSU originally implied, but to prepare and
protect the institution in forthcoming litigation.

Similarly superficial was MSU’s public insistence that all its employees fully
cooperate with our investigation. In stark contrast to its public statements, MSU
privately insisted that its own attorneys attend interviews with MSU employees. At
some of those interviews, MSU’s legal team—attorneys hired to represent the
interests of the University, not the individual witness—prohibited witnesses from
answering investigators’ questions because it would divulge information they
believed was protected by MSU’s attorney-client privilege. Investigators perceived
this tactic as a veiled attempt by the University to blunt the candor of witnesses and
otherwise prevent them from sharing certain details regarding MSU’s knowledge and
handling of the Nassar matter.

This protectionist tactic continued throughout the investigation. When we

requested MSU produce documents relating to Nassar and the University’s handling
of sexual assault reports, MSU drowned our investigators in irrelevant documents.
The University has boasted of producing tens of thousands of pages of electronic
documents, but the size of its production should not be confused with its level of
cooperation. Unresponsive documents such as the University’s Bed Bug
Management-Infection Control policy, various restaurant coupons, and the seemingly
endless (and duplicative) supply of emails from news-clipping services containing
publicly available articles, offered absolutely no assistance in determining who at the
University knew of Nassar’s abuse and when they knew it.

In addition, the University withheld or redacted thousands of documents under

a claim of “attorney-client privilege.” Attorney-client privilege generally permits a
client, like MSU, to refuse to disclose confidential communications they had with
their attorney. But a client can always decide to “waive” the privilege and allow the
disclosure of such communications. MSU’s decision to invoke this privilege and
protect certain documents, while legally permissible, nonetheless reflects a decision
to place financial and legal considerations over and above the survivors’ and the
public’s interest in learning how Larry Nassar was able to prey on so many young
women at the state’s largest public university.

The University’s response and the prospect of an investigation based solely on

information that it unilaterally and selectively decided to produce was, of course,
unacceptable and inconsistent with its public pledge of openness and cooperation. As
a result, we requested MSU to provide all information being withheld under the claim
of privilege. In response, the University effectively asked us to trust its assertion of
privilege while disparaging us for having the audacity to question such assertions,
some of which were obviously improper.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 4
December 21, 2018

Our skepticism of MSU’s assertion of privilege was not unfounded. From just
the emails that MSU voluntarily disclosed, investigators caught a glimpse into MSU’s
culture of anti-transparency. For example, Vice President for Communications and
Brand Strategy, Heather Swain, directed Trustee Brian Breslin to copy University
legal counsel Robert Noto on an email to other Trustees in order to “maintain
privilege,” despite the fact that the email was not seeking any type of legal advice
from Noto.

The protectionist mindset is also evident in an email sent by Secretary of the

Board Bill Beekman to President Lou Anna K. Simon. In December 2017, Beekman
sent a lengthy email to Simon in which he summarized numerous meetings and
conversations from the preceding day. The email ended with Beekman stating, “I will
delete this email after sending it.” Thus, not only has the University applied a very
liberal interpretation of the scope of the privilege to emails that do exist, there is a
distinct possibility, if not probability, that relevant, non-privileged emails were
destroyed prior to our investigation. Regardless, this reflects a mindset among
University leadership that is geared more toward secrecy and protecting its
reputation than it is openness and transparency.

As a result of MSU’s unwillingness to turn over documents, we had reason to

believe were relevant to our investigation, we requested MSU’s legal department to
reconsider its invocation of privilege. When our request was denied, we next asked
the MSU Board of Trustees to waive the privilege to make good on its pledge of
cooperation and truth-seeking. The Board, on the advice of counsel, also denied our
request. Having failed in our attempts to have MSU waive its privilege, we then
asked that MSU turn over the disputed documents to a neutral third-party for review.
Once again, we were rebuffed.

Faced with MSU’s repeated denials, we obtained a judicially authorized search

warrant directing MSU to turn over to a judge all emails, text messages, and
documents pertaining to Nassar that MSU previously identified as privileged. In
keeping with its ongoing lack of cooperation, MSU objected and asked the judge that
they not be required to comply. In documents filed with the court, the University
admitted for the first time that it had actually withheld or redacted 7,651 documents.
Prior to this admission, attorneys for the University had led us to believe that they
had withheld or redacted approximately 1,500 documents.

As we expected, the judge ordered MSU to turn over the contested documents
for review. Before doing so, however, MSU “voluntarily” provided the Department
with almost a thousand documents it had previously redacted or withheld on the basis
of privilege. After review, the judge ordered the University to produce 177 more
documents. Unfortunately, MSU continues to challenge the judge’s decision, which
means that, as of this date, MSU has still not disclosed all information that is
potentially relevant to our investigation.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 5
December 21, 2018

We recount these exchanges to show that, rather than “ready cooperation,” as

the Board promised, the University has largely circled the wagons. An institution
truly interested in the truth would not have acted as MSU has. MSU’s initial decision
to hire a private law firm to conduct its internal investigation, its subsequent refusal
to release the results of that investigation and waive attorney-client privilege, along
with its insistence on having its attorneys attend witness interviews have made it
virtually impossible to know exactly what happened at MSU during the Nassar years.
For as long as MSU frustrates the search for the truth, we will never be fully confident
that we have it.

Overview of the investigative process

The core mission of our investigation concerned whether anyone at MSU knew
or should have known about Nassar’s abuse and could have put a stop to it earlier.
Our team performed a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the
abuse perpetrated by Nassar, including which MSU employees knew, what they
knew, when they knew it, and what did they did—or didn’t do—with that knowledge.

The investigation has spanned nearly a year and involved a substantial

amount of time and resources from the Attorney General’s Office and the Michigan
State Police. Fifteen law enforcement officers contributed to the investigation, with
Michigan State Police assigning eight investigators and the Attorney General’s Office
contributing seven.3 Another twelve members of the Attorney General’s Office, from
attorneys to support staff, assisted in the investigation.

At the outset of the investigation, we took several immediate steps, including

requesting all relevant documents and evidence from MSU, as discussed above. We
hosted several informational meetings with survivors in an effort to keep them and
the public updated on the status of the investigation. We also set up a tip line for
members of the public to provide helpful information in a confidential manner. We
received over 100 tips through the tip line, many of which related to the core mission
of the investigation. Again, for those tips that related to other alleged criminal
wrongdoing at MSU, investigators referred those matters to the appropriate law
enforcement agency.

3 The Michigan State Police and the Attorney General Investigators deserve credit
for their dedication and professionalism. In particular, Detective-First Lieutenant
Ryan Pennell of the Michigan State Police and Special Agent David Dwyre of the
Attorney General’s Office coordinated the investigative resources for this large-scale
endeavor. Their tireless efforts should give every survivor confidence that our
investigation was thorough and relentless.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 6
December 21, 2018

The bulk of the investigative process involved reviewing documents produced

by MSU and interviewing every potentially relevant witness at MSU. In all, we
contacted almost 550 people, including interviews of over 280 survivors.4 Any
information suggesting the survivors had told someone at MSU about concerns with
Nassar’s treatment led to interviews with the named employee and other relevant
personnel at MSU. We interviewed 105 of those individuals, including everyone from
secretarial staff, sports trainers, and other physicians in the College of Osteopathic
Medicine, to current and former provosts, the entire Board of Trustees, and former
university president, Lou Anna K. Simon. For every interview, investigators
prepared a written report, which was reviewed by at least three attorneys to
determine whether follow-up was appropriate and whether it suggested any criminal
activity. In addition, a team of attorneys reviewed approximately 105,000
documents, consisting of almost 500,000 pages.

Dr. Lossing debunks Nassar’s false assertion of medical legitimacy

Because Nassar used the guise of “medical treatment” in an attempt to

legitimize his abuse, we sought the assistance of a renowned expert in osteopathic
manipulative medicine, Dr. Kenneth Lossing. Dr. Lossing, the past president of the
American Academy of Osteopathy, provided us with expertise regarding legitimate
osteopathic manipulative techniques in the pelvic area, including the “sacrotuberous
ligament release,” which Nassar often used as a cover for his sexual assaults.
Nassar’s assertion of medical legitimacy was contradicted by Dr. Lossing’s analysis.
Of note, and contrary to Nassar’s practice, Dr. Lossing advised that intravaginal
treatment should typically be utilized only if a patient presents with a trauma-
induced history of infertility, irregular menstruation, incontinence, or pelvic pain,
and only after external treatment is ineffective.

When performing such a sensitive procedure, he said, clear and informed

consent is paramount. If the patient is not of legal age, informed consent from the
patient’s parent or legal guardian is required. And when conducting intravaginal
treatment on a patient of the opposite sex, a chaperone is standard procedure.
Finally, Dr. Lossing stated that the specific parameters of the treatment, including
whether an internal approach was used, should be fully documented in the patient’s
medical records. The accounts from survivors reveal that Nassar showed no regard
for these basic medical protocols.

In light of Dr. Lossing’s expert insight and concerns raised by numerous

survivors that Nassar’s medical colleagues could have or should have noticed his
abusive methods from the medical documentation, investigators also reviewed a

4 Because a number of the survivors were minors, investigators in some cases

interviewed a parent instead of the survivor.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 7
December 21, 2018

significant number of medical records. Two attorneys at the Attorney General’s

Office who are also medical doctors confidentially reviewed every medical record that
the Department obtained during Nassar’s criminal prosecution to look for possible
warning signals missed by peer reviewers. They found no evidence that a peer
reviewer without the benefit of post-publicity and post-conviction hindsight would
have faulted the documentation or questioned the treatments rendered. But in those
cases where a survivor had reported abuse to MSU, the survivor’s medical records
did not correlate with their police statement; specifically, the documentation did not
match the police statements as to intensity, duration, and invasiveness of the
treatments. A peer reviewer would have or should have questioned the treatments
and procedures employed by Nassar if the treatment sessions had been completely
documented as to duration and method. In short, it appears that Nassar disguised
the “treatments” he performed by not documenting the conduct that would have
raised red flags.

Nassar remains defiant and unrepentant

For a variety of reasons, Nassar was among the first people interviewed by our
investigators. He offered no helpful information. In fact, it immediately became clear
that his statements of remorse in the courtroom were a farce. Among other things,
he stated that he did nothing wrong in regard to Amanda Thomashow—the survivor
at the center of MSU’s 2014 Title IX investigation into Nassar. He also felt that the
criminal case against him “should have been handled as a medical malpractice case.”
Nassar claimed that he only pleaded guilty because he lost support from the medical
community and his patients after the police discovered reams of child pornography
in his possession. Finally, and contrary to his sworn statement at the time he pleaded
guilty, he was adamant that all of his “treatment” was done for a medical purpose,
not for his own pleasure.

Investigative interviews reveal eleven MSU employees failed to report

Nassar’s abuse

A major component of our investigation involved interviewing the survivors to

determine whether they told anyone at MSU about the abuse. Of the 280 survivors
we interviewed, thirteen stated that they reported Nassar’s abuse to an identified
MSU employee at or near the time it was happening.5 Their reports date as far back
as 1997 and as recently as 2015. Those thirteen women and a summary of their
allegations are as follows:

5 Other survivors stated that they reported to someone at MSU but were unable to
recall the person’s name and we were unable to independently identify those
employees.
 MSU Investigation Update
Page 8
December 21, 2018

1. Kyle Stephens, the daughter of a family friend of Nassar, was sexually

abused by Nassar beginning in 1998. Her abuse exceeded Nassar’s typical
sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment and included being forced
to watch Nassar masturbate and Nassar rubbing his penis against her feet.
Stephens reported her abuse to MSU professor and psychologist Dr. Gary
Stollak, who counselled her, her parents, and Nassar together about the
allegation. After Dr. Stollak’s counselling, Stephens falsely recanted her story.

2 & 3. Larissa Boyce and a second youth gymnast were digitally penetrated by
Nassar during treatment sessions in the late 1990s. We allege that after
talking with each other about the treatment both girls raised concerns about
it with MSU gymnastics coach, Kathie Klages. We have charged Klages with
lying to a police officer for her alleged misrepresentations to police surrounding
this incident, and as a result we are unable to provide further details about
this incident. We reiterate here that Klages is presumed innocent until proven
guilty.

4. Tiffany Thomas Lopez reported being digitally penetrated by Nassar during

several of her appointments in 1999. She initially told athletic trainer Heena
Shah Trivedi, who did not relay Lopez’s complaint to the proper authorities but
who apparently did inform Nassar. Lopez later reported Nassar’s conduct to
trainer Lianna Hadden, even demonstrating what he did. In response, Hadden
began to cry and later told Lopez she would report the matter to her supervisor,
Destiny Teachnor-Hauk. There is no evidence that Hadden informed
Teachnor-Hauk. Lopez later raised the issue directly with Teachnor-Hauk,
who assured Lopez that Nassar’s treatments were legitimate and cautioned
her that filing a complaint would place a burden on Tiffany, Tiffany’s family,
and MSU.

5. Christie Achenbach received treatment from Nassar in 1999 for hamstring

problems. During one appointment, he digitally penetrated her vagina without
warning or gloves. Several days later, Achenbach told assistant MSU track
coach, Kelli Bert, who brushed off Christie’s concerns, saying that Nassar was
a doctor and knew what he was doing.

6. Jennifer Bedford was sexually assaulted by Nassar in 2000 or 2001, and

after one of her appointments she reported to athletic trainer Lianna Hadden
that she was not comfortable with Nassar’s treatment. Hadden told her that
there was no option of filing a confidential complaint and that the only way to
voice her concerns would be to file a report, which could prompt a criminal
investigation.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 9
December 21, 2018

7. Jill Berg saw Nassar in 2002 for a sports injury. She was sexually assaulted
several times, including once in which Nassar cupped her breast and digitally
penetrated her vagina. Berg later had a discussion about the treatments with
her teammates, which was overheard by athletic trainer Tony Robles.
According to Berg, Robles seemed concerned about the incident, but she
assured Robles everything was fine.

8. Kassie Castle, a youth gymnast at Twistars, was assaulted by Nassar

between 2004 and 2010. Nassar’s assaults included penetrating her anus and
vagina with his fingers, sometimes when he had an erection. Castle’s mother
initially confronted Nassar about his treatments, but he assured her it was
medically appropriate. Later, in 2007, Castle reported to Dr. Brooke Lemmen
that she was uncomfortable with Nassar’s treatments because it was causing
her to bleed.

9. Shannon Dunn was abused by Nassar during one treatment session in 2010
in which he digitally penetrated her vagina. Dunn reported the incident to
MSU sports psychiatrist Dr. Lionel Rosen, who expressed no concern, telling
Shannon that Nassar was only doing what was best for her.

10. Catryina Brown was a paid “simulated patient” for the MSU College of
Osteopathic Medicine in 2009 or 2010 when Nassar massaged her clitoris
under the auspices of instructing students how to perform a pap smear. Brown
reported the incident to her supervisor, Rebecca Cass.

11. One young girl received treatment from Nassar in 2012. According to her
mother, who was present in the room, Nassar used a “medical technique” that
made her and her daughter uncomfortable. After that visit, they switched
physicians to Nassar’s colleague, Dr. Brooke Lemmen. During her daughter’s
first visit with Dr. Lemmen, the mother told her that Nassar’s treatment made
them feel uncomfortable. Dr. Lemmen replied, “[W]e get that a lot.”

12. Amanda Thomashow received treatment from Nassar in 2014 for hip pain.
During the appointment, Nassar massaged her breast and rubbed her vagina
despite her protestations that it hurt. Thomashow reported the incident to Dr.
Jeffrey Kovan, who called the MSU Title IX Office to report her complaint.

13. Kelle Sajdak reported being “groped” by Nassar to her boyfriend and MSU
athletic trainer David Jager in 2015. According to Sajdak, Jager responded
with indifference, saying that Nassar was “the best in the world.” According
to Jager, he recalled Sajdak’s complaint and told her to make a report if she
felt uncomfortable.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 10
December 21, 2018

A culture of indifference toward the health and safety of MSU students and
faculty

After interviewing each of the above survivors, we also interviewed every

employee mentioned above. Nearly every employee either claimed that they could
not recall receiving a report of abuse or explicitly denied ever being told. Although
there is no evidence that these MSU employees consciously conspired with each other
or with Nassar to cover up his abuse, the real explanation of why Nassar was able to
perpetrate his crimes for so long is little better.

In some sense, the MSU employees around Nassar were misled much like the
survivors were. All of Nassar’s colleagues stated that they never witnessed Nassar
digitally penetrate a patient, though the ones most familiar with Nassar’s specialty
emphasized that vaginal penetration could be medically appropriate in certain, rare
circumstances—an opinion shared by Dr. Lossing. It is evident that Nassar was able
to use his associates’ familiarity with a legitimate medical technique to conduct
treatment that resembled that technique, but which constituted sexual assault, done
for his own personal sexual gratification.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that, according to nearly every survivor

interviewed above, the MSU employees who allegedly received reports of Nassar’s
sexual assault or improper medical treatment (with the exception of Dr. Kovan)
downplayed its seriousness or affirmatively discouraged the survivors from
proceeding with their allegation. That so many survivors independently disclosed to
so many different MSU employees over so many years, each time with no success,
reveals a problem that cannot be explained as mere isolated, individual failures; it is
evidence of a larger cultural problem at the MSU Sports Medicine Clinic and MSU
more broadly.

For as varied as the details of the survivors’ accounts are, there is a common
thread through each: the tendency of MSU employees to give the benefit of the doubt
to Nassar, not the young women who came forward. When faced with accusations of
digital penetration during routine medical treatments—serious allegations that
amount to criminal wrongdoing—the MSU employees discounted the young woman’s
story and deferred to Nassar, the world-renowned sports medicine doctor.

MSU’s Title IX Office failed to properly investigate 2014 allegations against

Nassar

One of the lessons the evidence in this matter teaches is that automatic
deference to authority creates presumptions that work against those without
authority. That deference produced catastrophic results not only for the young
women whose reports were ignored, but for every other young woman who was
MSU Investigation Update
Page 11
December 21, 2018

victimized by Nassar up until the investigation of Amanda Thomashow’s 2014

complaint.

Unfortunately, the same is also true for Ms. Thomashow—the one survivor
whose complaint was properly reported—as well as the young women who were
sexually assaulted by Nassar after the conclusion of the Title IX investigation. In
April 2014, Ms. Thomashow reported to Dr. Jeffrey Kovan that Nassar rubbed her
breast and vagina during a medical appointment to treat her hip pain. Dr. Kovan
relayed the complaint to MSU’s Title IX Office, which, in conjunction with the MSU
Police Department, investigated Ms. Thomashow’s allegation. Sadly, the MSU Title
IX investigation process, aided in part by mistakes by those tasked with carrying out
the investigation, failed Ms. Thomashow. And again, the deficiencies were borne of
a deference to authority figures.

The MSU official charged with investigating Thomashow’s complaint was

Kristine Moore of MSU’s Title IX Office. There is no evidence that she conducted the
investigation in bad faith or consciously arrived at a predetermined result. But there
were multiple shortcomings in the investigation that, even without the benefit of
hindsight, substantially influenced MSU’s conclusion that Nassar did not violate its
sexual misconduct policy.

The first significant failure of the Title IX investigation centered on Moore’s

failure to consult neutral and objective medical experts with no ties to Nassar or the
MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine. Moore recognized early on that resolving Ms.
Thomashow’s complaint would turn, in part, on whether Nassar’s treatment was
medically legitimate, which required consultation with experts in his field.
Highlighting the deficiency of this process, the experts she consulted were Nassar’s
colleagues at the College of Osteopathic Medicine, Drs. Brooke Lemmen, Lisa
DeStefano, and Jennifer Gilmore. All three either studied, worked, or taught with
Nassar. During her investigation, Moore either downplayed the witnesses’
connection with Nassar or failed to consider how their personal opinions of Nassar as
a man of character affected their professional judgment.

Dr. Lemmen’s bias in favor of Nassar was particularly troubling. Evidence

shows that she maintained a close personal relationship with Nassar outside the
workplace—so close that she was aware of Thomashow’s allegations before Moore
formally interviewed Thomashow on May 29, 2014.6 Three days before that, on May
26, 2014, Nassar emailed Lemmen about the allegations, providing Lemmen
background on his treatment technique and how he had previously and without

6Dr. Lemmen’s connection with Nassar makes it all the more troubling that her MSU
email account was deleted before our investigation began.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 12
December 21, 2018

objection performed techniques similar to the allegations he claimed Thomashow was

making.

In an apparent attempt to taint Lemmen’s perception of the case, Nassar

misrepresented Thomashow’s complaint, writing, “[Thomashow] never said that I
was making her uncomfortable, she never said that she [sic, I] did not explain what I
was doing well enough to her. That is what is killing me. I have been called the ‘Body
Whisperer’. How could I miss her signals that she was so uncomfortable?”

Nassar also implied that Thomashow was motivated to falsely accuse him:

“What I do know is that Dr. Kovan said that it was after I ‘Liked’ a
picture on Instagram of her sister, who is a gymnast, which made her
decide to call Dr. Kovan. The patient was in the picture too. I think she
may have felt like I was ‘stalking’ her at that point or being too invasive
into her personal life. That would explain why I did not perceive any of
the ‘vibes’ that one would pick up if the patient was feeling violated.
Maybe that is why the patient did not say anything to me and actually
told me that the treatment was helping her and she felt better
afterward. That would make some sense.”

Moore was unaware that Nassar was communicating with Lemmen during the
investigation, and she has since acknowledged that interactions like this would
prejudice the investigation. But she has also continued to defend her decision to
consult only MSU- and Nassar-affiliated experts, contending that their credibility
was not an issue because everyone agreed (with Nassar) that the treatment he says
he performed was medically legitimate.7 That reasoning, however, ignores the very
real probability that their conclusion was influenced by their bias in favor of Nassar.
It also is predicated on the assumption that Nassar was, in fact, performing the
technique that he claimed he was performing, as opposed to the highly irregular
actions that Ms. Thomashow described.

That leads to the second significant failure of the Title IX investigation:

Moore’s failure to accurately convey Ms. Thomashow’s allegation to Drs. Lemmen,
DeStefano, and Gilmore.

7 Detective Val O’Brien, the MSU Police Department investigator assigned to

Thomashow’s case, also failed to consult additional experts, despite being asked to do
so by Ingham County Assistant Prosecutor Debra Rousseau. There is no evidence
Detective O’Brien ever consulted an outside expert, or even conducted an
independent criminal investigation. Detective O’Brien has not explained her
investigative decisions, as she was unwilling to be interviewed by our investigators.
MSU Investigation Update
Page 13
December 21, 2018

During her interview with Moore, Ms. Thomashow alleged, in part, that
Nassar placed three fingers on top of her vagina and rubbed in a circular motion.
Following Ms. Thomashow’s interview, Moore and Detective O’Brien each
interviewed Nassar and confronted him with Ms. Thomashow’s allegations.
Throughout both interviews, Nassar minimized the seriousness of Ms. Thomashow’s
allegation in an attempt to bring it in line with the legitimate forms of his medical
technique. He also implied that Ms. Thomashow had ulterior motives in making an
allegation against him, suggesting that she only came forward because he “Liked” a
picture of her on social media. He also claimed that she had a “psych history” and
questioned whether she had been sexually abused in the past: “Did I open Pandora’s
Box for her? What other issues does she have whether it be physical space or mental
space[?]” By the end, Nassar had reduced Ms. Thomashow’s allegation into a close
description of his medical procedure. “Yes I’m there and yes it’s medical,” Nassar
said, adding, “What she described matches what I would do.”

Nassar’s efforts to manipulate the investigation appears to have had a

significant effect. Following her interview with Nassar, Moore focused her attention
on the legitimacy of the technique that Nassar claimed he performed. As Moore
would write in an email a day later about the state of the investigation: “At this point,
there is not much discrepancy in terms of the two stories about what occurred.”
Unfortunately, Moore failed to pursue whether there was a material disconnect
between Ms. Thomashow’s specific allegations and proper medical procedure.

According to Moore’s handwritten notes from her interviews with Drs.

Lemmen, DeStefano, and Gilmore, it does not appear that Moore ever recited Ms.
Thomashow’s specific allegation regarding his pelvic treatment. Moore’s notes reveal
that she conveyed discrete aspects of Ms. Thomashow’s complaint, like the fact that
Nassar did not immediately stop when she complained of pain, but there is no
evidence she specifically told the doctors that Nassar placed three fingers on top of
the patient’s vagina and rubbed in a circular motion.

All three doctors have since confirmed with investigators that they were never
told the specifics of Ms. Thomashow’s complaint. Rather than present the experts
with the facts presented in the complaint, Moore focused her questions on the
legitimacy of the technique Nassar claimed he was performing. Naturally, all of the
doctors told Moore that it was a legitimate medical procedure. As Dr. DeStefano put
it to investigators: “[I]t wasn’t a matter of trusting Amanda Thomashow, it was
questioning the technique.” According to Dr. DeStefano, she thought she knew the
technique he was using, and her role was to defend the technique.

After subsequently learning the details of Nassar’s misconduct, each doctor

has since retreated from her original opinion. For example, Dr. Gilmore told
investigators that vaginal penetration is not an accepted part of the technique Nassar
claimed he was performing. And Dr. Lemmen stated that Ms. Thomashow’s
MSU Investigation Update
Page 14
December 21, 2018

allegation of rubbing the top of the vagina in a circular motion would have raised red
flags for her. Lemmen said, “Knowing what I know now, . . . I think the information
from Amanda was filtered in a way that did not give me the ability to understand
what had truly happened to her.”

In sum, had Moore consulted experts with no ties to Nassar or the MSU Sports
Medicine Clinic, or accurately conveyed Ms. Thomashow’s key allegation, it appears
likely that the result of the 2014 investigation would have been different.

Criminal charges we have filed

Other facts we have uncovered are consistent with MSU’s culture of

indifference and its efforts to protect its reputation. But because we have initiated
criminal charges against three individuals in the MSU hierarchy—the former MSU
gymnastics coach, the former Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine, and the
former President of the University—we are obliged by the Michigan Rules of
Professional Conduct to abstain from disseminating facts that might affect a jury’s
view of the “character, credibility, [or] reputation” of defendants and witnesses that
may appear in court. M.R.P.C. 3.6(a)(1). Moreover, there are facts that may well
color a jury’s view of a particular defendant that would be inadmissible at a trial.
M.R.P.C. 3.6(a)(5). At this stage, these individuals are only alleged to have committed
criminal acts and they are all presumed innocent. Because of our ethical duties, we
merely outline the nature of the crimes for which the defendants have been charged.

William Strampel is charged with misconduct in office, fourth-degree criminal

sexual conduct, and two counts of willful neglect of duty. The willful-neglect charges
involve Strampel’s alleged failure to properly supervise Nassar by allowing him to
return to work during the 2014 Title IX Thomashow Investigation and his alleged
failure to enforce protocols for examinations and procedures conducted by Nassar
that had been put in place after the Title IX investigation was completed. Strampel’s
remaining charges pertain to his own personal, unrelated criminal conduct uncovered
during our investigation. The facts underlying those charges have been set out in the
affidavit in support of criminal charges in Ingham County.

Kathie Klages was charged with two counts of lying to a peace officer. These
charges involve allegations that Klages falsely denied to investigators that two
survivors reported to her that they were assaulted by Nassar.

Lou Anna K. Simon was charged with four counts of lying to a peace officer,
also arising out of statements she gave to police officers regarding material facts of
this investigation. Specifically, Simon is alleged to have given false or misleading
statements when she (1) denied that she was aware of the nature of the complaint
that generated the 2014 Title IX Thomashow Investigation and (2) told investigators
that she was aware that there was a “sports medicine doc who was subject to review”
MSU Investigation Update
Page 15
December 21, 2018

in 2014 even though she allegedly knew that it was Nassar who was the subject of
the 2014 Title IX investigation.

In addition to these criminal charges brought by the Department of Attorney

General, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has taken
administrative action against Strampel’s and Stollak’s professional licenses. The
allegations in the administrative proceedings against Strampel arise, in part, from
his alleged failure to properly supervise Nassar. In regard to Stollak, he voluntarily
surrendered his license after not contesting that he failed to inform authorities of
Kyle Stephens’ allegations of sexual abuse by Nassar.

Erika Davis’ allegations of conspiracy by MSU officials

There is one additional allegation involving MSU’s knowledge of Nassar’s

conduct that warrants discussion: Erika Davis’ claim of a cover-up by certain MSU
officials after Nassar allegedly drugged her and then filmed himself sexually
assaulting her. According to Davis’ civil complaint, the assault happened in 1992
when she was 17 years old. She alleges that her field hockey coach, Martha Ludwig,
referred her to Nassar because she (Ludwig) knew him through a mutual friend.
Based on her coach’s recommendation and Nassar’s reputation and standing with
USA Gymnastics, Davis made an appointment with Nassar. She further alleges that
after the alleged assault she told her coach, who confronted Nassar, retrieved the
video of the assault, and ultimately took the allegations to the athletic director. She
also claims that former athletic director George Perles intervened, confiscated the
video and forced the field hockey coach to resign and sign a non-disclosure agreement
about the matter. She also alleges that she told her “dorm mom” Cheryl about the
assault and that “Cheryl” told her to contact the MSU Police Department. Davis
claims that, when she went to the MSU Police Department to report the assault, a
sergeant instructed her to drop the complaint and told her to leave the building.
As part of our review of MSU, we investigated Ms. Davis’ allegations and found
no credible evidence to support them. In fact, we found substantial evidence
contradicting her claims concerning the supposed cover-up. We interviewed Ms.
Ludwig who told investigators that she did not recall Ms. Davis. Ludwig also told
investigators that she had never referred any of her athletes to Nassar and did not
know Nassar personally or by reputation. She further stated that the only
interactions she ever had with George Perles were in regard to whether the field
hockey team could practice on the “turf field” in order to prepare for upcoming games.
Ms. Ludwig also stated that her contacts with Perles, which were always about work
and sports, were always professional and respectful. Moreover, there is no evidence
that Ms. Ludwig was forced to resign or was required to sign a non-disclosure
agreement upon leaving MSU. More significantly, we confirmed that in 1992 Nassar
was not affiliated with either the MSU Sports Medicine Clinic or USA Gymnastics.
In actuality, Nassar was still a medical school student in the spring of 1992. Further,
MSU Investigation Update
Page 16
December 21, 2018

we could find no “dorm mom” named Cheryl assigned to any of Ms. Davis’ residence
halls during her time at MSU. Finally, we found no evidence that Ms. Davis filed a
complaint with the MSU Police Department in 1992.
A failure of people, not policy

While MSU’s latest efforts at reforming its sexual misconduct policies and
procedures are a step in the right direction, our investigation leads us to conclude
that the inability to halt Nassar’s lengthy pattern of abuse and to address the
dysfunctional atmosphere at the College of Osteopathic Medicine is attributable not
to any deficient policy, but to a series of individual failures; policies are no better than
the people tasked with implementing them. Until there is a top-down cultural change
at MSU, survivors and the public would be rightly skeptical of the effectiveness of
any set of written policies.