Counsel who reviewed initial report of resident possessing child porn no longer employed by U-M
The attorney within the University of Michigan Health System’s Office of the General Counsel who reviewed the report of a resident physician accused of possessing child pornography no longer works at the hospital.
University of Michigan Health System
University of Michigan Health System photo
University of Michigan spokesman Rick Fitzgerald confirmed Tuesday that the attorney within the office who had reviewed the case and decided not to inform University of Michigan Department of Public Safety officials is no longer an employee as of June 2011.
Fitzgerald said the university does not discuss personnel matters and he would not comment on how the attorney left the university or whether it was related to the child pornography case.
After the Office of the General Counsel decided not to pursue the case, it was six months before an official with hospital security brought the case to police.
Stephen Jenson, 36, has been charged with four counts of possessing child sexually abusive material and will be in court next month for a preliminary exam.
In May, a resident physician met with her supervisors, hospital security officials and the employee within the Office of the General Counsel about materials she had seen on a thumb drive left in a locked lounge where residents work in the Pediatric Emergency Department, according to records.
The most disturbing image the resident saw on the drive was a photograph of a “nude adult lying” on a young child whose arms “were bound” and appeared to be tied to a bed frame, according to police records.
The Office of the General Counsel for the Health System decided there was not enough evidence in the case to forward the investigation to university police, Fitzgerald said. A few days after meeting with the attorney, the resident who reported the incident was told the matter was closed, records show.
Related stories
- University of Michigan regent calls six month lapse in reporting child porn 'extraordinarily disappointing'
- U-M Health System CEO calls delay in reporting child porn 'painful moment in our history'
- University of Michigan officials didn't report child porn to police for 6 months
- University of Michigan officials weren't required by law to report child porn to state
However, in November a member of hospital security reported the incident to U-M police, launching an investigation.
Police executed a search warrant Dec. 2 at Jenson’s house in Pittsfield Township and seized several items, including thumb drives — at least one of which contained images of child porn, according to the search warrant affidavit. Photographs of Jenson were on the same thumb drive, according to records.
Numerous university officials, including the hospital’s chief executive officer and at least one regent, have faulted how the investigation was handled. U-M President Mary Sue Coleman has ordered an internal review of the case by university auditors, Fitzgerald told AnnArbor.com.
Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
anotheruofm
Thu, Feb 2, 2012 : 1:52 a.m.
Everyone is missing the point. She was fired because this was one of many blunders. But the university can't say why because then they are admitting that they knew about this and continued to cover it up.
treetowncartel
Fri, Feb 3, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
What other blunders? inquiring minds want to know.
BhavanaJagat
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
The Two Sides of the Story : I do not attach any importance to this revelation that an attorney has left service for some unknown reason. There is no direct implication that the attorney is guilty of some error of judgment. I want to examine the Two Sides of this Story;1. the academic training and preparation of students/residents for medical profession, and 2. the administrative responsibility of the University and Hospital System. The University and the Hospital System own the buildings and the computers and provide other facilities like electric power, internet service, and the lounge space. To avoid the potential misuse and abuse of its facilities, the University/Hospital System must use discretion and install security cameras in areas where computers are used in the absence of supervisors or other staff members. If a image appears on the computer screen, we will have evidence about the user at that time. These days, many companies are placing security cameras in breakrooms and lounges to avoid charges like sexual harassment and to protect their own interests in litigation involving employee misuse and abuse of computers. I am more interested in the first aspect of this story. We must prepare people for the profession they would like to join, and hence we need to teach them about human nature and human behavior. There is no evidence to suggest that the University/Hospital System provide such comprehensive training.
CincoDeMayo
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
A better link to all of the regents: <a href="http://www.regents.umich.edu/about/regents.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.regents.umich.edu/about/regents.html</a>
CincoDeMayo
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
Here are the links to contact them: <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869--,00.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869--,00.html</a> <a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=MI" rel='nofollow'>http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=MI</a> <a href="http://www.regents.umich.edu/ovp.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.regents.umich.edu/ovp.html</a>
JustMyOpinion
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
If you find that the handling of this affair has been negligent and self serving by the U staff, do us all a favor - write to 1) The Governors office 2) Each Regent (election coming up) and 3) Both US Senators. It's called the glare of public scrutiny, and it will not happen until the public demands it. Email, phone or write!
kms
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
It's up to the Regents to demand an external review. Unless they do so, University officials will close ranks, say nothing, wait until the public outrage dies down and look ahead to the spring football practice season when there will be tons of positive stories written.
15crown00
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 11:23 a.m.
i guess that's one small step for U of M with several large ones left to go.
The Black Stallion3
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 11:14 a.m.
There is a huge cover-up going on at the U of M and it needs to be exposed. These are tax payer dollars paying for this university and the tax payers deserve to know what is going on there.
justcurious
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:48 a.m.
It just doesn't matter that the attorney left or was canned by the U. We all know that the University would never let anything happen without a supervisory person reviewing what an underling did. That person obviously did nothing about the information either. The scapegoat defense doesn't hold water.
a2citizen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 5:12 a.m.
You would think that more than one person needed to sign off on this.
say it plain
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:41 a.m.
This is getting a little confusing to me... I've seen now in the comments on various threads related to this case the claim that the resident who found the first flash drive in the computer at the UM Hospital lounge eventually took her concerns to the UM Medical School Dean. Is this confirmed somewhere?!
justcurious
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:52 a.m.
Someone said that and someone else questioned it, but the original commenter didn't reply. I never saw it in any of the articles. I think the person who said it made an assumption.
trespass
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:38 a.m.
Lee- ask Human Resorces if he is eligible for re-hire. That information should be available to the public and it is an indication of whether he resigned volunarily or was fired.
say it plain
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.
Perfect! A scapegoat who not only no longer works for the UM, but hmmm...how suspicious is that?!...left, for reasons they are not at liberty to tell lol, left just after the case was so suddenly closed! You couldn't make up a cover-up story better than that, how lucky for the UM that they have it all under control and have a 'responsible person' already in mind to pin all the blame on!
godhelpus15
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
I would be interested in hearing the counsel members side of the story. I don't believe anything that UM is trying to spin.
a2citizen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:04 a.m.
Cannot wait for the next development, to occur on Wednesday: The identity of the former attorney.
cibachrome
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:58 a.m.
Imperium in imperio.
Left is Right
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:43 a.m.
Whew! Found a scapegoat! That was close!
average joe
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:40 a.m.
"Fitzgerald said the university does not discuss personnel matters and he would not comment on how the attorney left the university or whether it was related to the child pornography case." From the it isn't 'what' they say, but what they 'didn't say' department- Couldn't he just as easily say it had nothing to do with this case? The incident took place in May, & this Counsel left in June....... If the attorney left because of this case, then doesn't that make the way the U/M handled this whole situation much more suspect? It would also indicate that it was mishandled twice.
godhelpus15
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
i also wonder was counsel forced to leave because he spoke out against this case and thought it should be forwarded to the police when his superiors decided it could be closed? just a thought...
average joe
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:22 a.m.
How convenient for the U/M. Because the circumstances surrounding the departure of the former employee is considered confidential, the U/M will use this as protection from anymore worms getting out of the can. The fact still remains that this whole investigation is completely under the U/M's control. No outside police agency has been involved yet, and the regents should order everything be turned over to an outside authority.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:17 a.m.
"The assertion that there was not enough evidence to forward the case to University police is laughable. " Agreed. If I suspected someone of doing that, I'm not going to decide if there is enough evidence, I would simply call the cops. You call the cops and they'll look into it and decide if there is enough evidence or if there was any wrong-doing. You pick up the phone and you dial 911. You talk to the cops and then they'll work on it. Don't be afraid of them. You did your duty. You don't have to be judge, jury and executioner -- all you have to do is dial 911. It's not hard.
CincoDeMayo
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.
Unless things have changed dramatically in the last 15 years, it takes a lot of pressure and determination from someone for these things to get investigated.
CincoDeMayo
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:03 p.m.
Although....I once called the cops (AAPD) about something like this. They took a report and then a detective called me back and asked me what I wanted him to do about it..... Fortunately, even though that wasn't that long ago, I think times and perspectives have changed. At least now when nothing is done about it, there is outrage....
kurtkoeh
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 5:40 a.m.
I agree. I don't know why the general counsel's office would decide that there is insufficient evidence. The general counsel's office is concerned with civil law not criminal law. They aren't experts in criminal law. They need to report it to the police and let the police investigate and forward it on to the prosecutor. Whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges is for the county prosecutor to determine after an investigation.
a2citizen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 3:09 a.m.
This is certainly a convenient development for this in the ivory tower.
Roadman
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:41 a.m.
The departure of this individual may or may not be related to the incident at issue. We do not even know his or her identity. The assertion that there was not enough evidence to forward the case to University police is laughable. There was clear evidence that someone was in possession of suspected child pornography and they had an idea whose thumb drive it belonged to. The clear path to take was immediate notification to the police to investigate and develop facts to build a case. I have seen absolutely no proof that Dr. Jenson was even questioned about what had been suspected, so clear deficiencies existed in the "investigation". The fact that police were able to build a case within a matter of days against Dr. Jenson shows that they may have been ulterior motives by U-M in closing the case in May. It will be far more painful for U-M if the criminal case against Dr. Jenson gets dismissed if the Court finds that the University acted improperly in committing undue delay prejudicing Jenson's rights or holds that the search warrant affidavit information did not constitute probable cause due to staleness of the facts. In other words, it could be reasonably probable that police find the thumb drive in Jenson's custody a few days after the other resident found it in the computer, but probable cause could conceivably not be found by the Court to search Jenson's home six months later for the same item, thus rendering the search warrant subject to quashing and the evidence gathered from it to be excluded at trial. I suspect that Dr. Jenson's defense team will request an evidentiary hearing on the reasons for the delays and this will be a treasure trove of facts being developed as to how the case was closed, why it was re-opened and who made the relevant decisions in these regards.
treetowncartel
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
I highly doubt a recent hire to the OGC decided to make this decision on their own. Nice try though.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.
I am disgusted by Ora's blog. Let me explain. One of the key 'tricks' in journalism or even in marketing... is to show the bad news, and then immediately push a bunch of 'happy' news to 'hide' the bad news. From a cynical point of view, this can be viewed as a way to 'cover up' bad stuff or quickly market happy stuff. If we were to do a timeline of the events, let it be known: On January 30th, Ora wrote her blog about the events <a href="http://www.medicinethatspeaks.org/984/my-comments-on-house-officer-allegationsinternal-review/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.medicinethatspeaks.org/984/my-comments-on-house-officer-allegationsinternal-review/</a> "This incident is a painful moment in our history. Undoubtedly, we should have done better. Moving forward, we will." any negative comments were moderated and deleted. The next day, January 31st, Ora spent her time on happy thoughts and marketing "Waste Watchers: Getting Leaner in 2012 " <a href="http://www.medicinethatspeaks.org/976/waste-watchers-getting-leaner-in-2012/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.medicinethatspeaks.org/976/waste-watchers-getting-leaner-in-2012/</a> the blog was filled with 'good'/'marketing' pro-friendly comments So, one day Ora writes about the 'bad news', and the very next day she goes back to normal and heads into 'marketing' mode. although the 2nd blog might be beneficial, the timing is inappropriate. disgusting. the spin machine. give time for the community to react and grieve, and then start your marketing.
Kai Petainen
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:31 a.m.
if you think of companies that have been hit with scandals... quite often the company will have the CEO say something to the likes of... 'we're sorry, this is awful, we'll fix it'. and they post that on their website. by doing that, they acknowledge the concern from the public and show that they are listening. they leave it on the website for days/weeks and even months. what ora's blog did... is quite the opposite -- it immediately went into marketing mode. that sends the wrong message. it shows that business is usual, public relations rules, and ... it sends the signal that you're not listening to public opinion.
anotheruofm
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:04 a.m.
How about Susan Balkema-General Counsel, Marilyn Hollier-Director Hospital Security, Tony Denton Director General Counsel, Corbi Wells-Hospital Investigator. Here are the names you want to talk too.
trespass
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:04 a.m.
The timing does not make sense according the facts that we know so far. If the attorney left because his superiors felt that they had mishandled the case, then it would indicate that their superiors knew about the case in June but did not report it until November. If their leaving was just coincidental then it will be very convenient for the administration to blame everything on this one attorney and absolve everyone else. It still sounds very fishy.
kmgeb2000
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
@justcurious: Apparently fact are also worth of being edited. But I'll rephrase. What also happened at the UM in November 2011? O'Dell left as U-M Police Chief at this same time frame - as reported by this web site. AnnArbor.com reported on the events that followed later. If this is also a "violation", then an explanation is warranted by AnnArbor.com. One could say they are unrelated events, but that would be a conjecture on AnnArbor.com's part.
justcurious
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
Or was that lawyer disgusted that their superiors refused to carry the investigation further, and decided to leave? It would be good to hear from that person.
justcurious
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 4:38 a.m.
Agreed.
heartbreakM
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:51 a.m.
The facts so far do not suggest the direct harm of children similar in severity to the Sandusky case, but the response by UM sure does. I have personally believed that the cover up that happened at PSU could have happened anywhere (though Paterno and the others deserved what they got by benign neglect) but it does shock me that the security office closed it so quickly. At least the CEO and President spoke out, but it should have been handled much more quickly.
justcurious
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.
"At least the CEO and President spoke out, but it should have been handled much more quickly." Did they have a choice? No kudos deserving there.
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
"The facts so far do not suggest the direct harm of children similar in severity to the Sandusky case" That is not a logical assumption at all. Children who are "posed" for pornographic photos or video are by definition being abused. The extent of physical abuse beyond the actual photo cannot be known nor can the extent of emotional and physical trauma the children suffer. Direct harm undoubtedly occurred, although perhaps not physically on campus.