I’ve been bothered greatly by the March 24 Report of Investigation by Escambia Public School District Investigator John Dobbs (Read report). Here’s why:
1. Dobbs did not investigate the events of March 1, the day of the alleged sexual assault, according to this report. The guidance department, teacher and assistant principal Colburn spoke with the witness’s mother before school was out on that Tuesday. Why didn’t they detain students and contact Escambia County Sheriff’s Office and/or SRO immediately? There is no mention of any of the school officials’ initial actions when they learned of the possible assault.
2. Ms. Spooner was called by Principal Shackle on the evening of March 1. Shackle notified her of the incident. What was said in this conversation? Who else did Spooner share this information with at the District office? Deputy Superintendent Norm Ross told the ECSO on March 4 that he had no knowledge of it. When did Spooner tell Superintendent Thomas? The report only occasionally mentions the District personnel at all.
3. Dobbs reports (top of page 2) “Office (sic) Small was counseled for inadequate documentation in the report filed with ECSO.” However Dobbs said that report was drawn from all the available information from the District report. What was inadequate in Small’s report if he used all the available information? Who did the counseling? District? ECSO?
4. This phrase is completely unprofessional (third question, page 2): “The communication and cooperation between the SRO and Tate was superb…” I’ve read hundreds of law enforcement investigative reports. Never seen one use the word “superb.” A professional investigator didn’t write those two sentences about the cooperation. They read like they were written by a Mass Communications major from UWF. The sentences place doubt on the independence of the investigation.
5. Then there is the question and answer on what happened between ECSO Investigator Carmona and Tate administrators. It’s a jumble of sentences that defy logic. I’m surprised that the District didn’t ask Dobbs to rewrite this confusing paragraph with a run-on sentence that even William Faulkner wouldn’t have attempted:
a) “The assigned ECSO Special Victims Unit (SVU) Investigator requested statements from Dean Venettozzi and Mr. Shackle in addition to a number of Tate Staff with potential information.” This is fairly straightforward and what one expect of a SUV investigator.
b) “Typically, personnel with only a peripheral hearsay knowledge such as an investigating official (in this case a Dean) and an administrator (Principal) do not prepare written statements for the SRO unless they actually observed an offense, or have substantive knowledge of the offense.”
i) Who determines “typically”? Investigators typically interview neighbors, bystanders and others who may not have actually seen a crime committed but have knowledge that may help understand what happened.
ii) Nothing in the first sentence states the SVU investigator asked for written statements.
iii) Why mention SRO? The SVU investigator asked for the statements.
iv) The Dean and Principal investigated the assault for two days and had suspended the alleged victim and suspect. Doesn’t that qualify as having “substantive knowledge of the offense”?
c) “The provision of all available witness statements to the SRO would appear to have been sufficient for the SRO to make a referral to an ECSO investigative entity.” Again it is the SUV investigator–someone specially trained for this type of crime– asking for information, not the SRO. In a murder case, a deputy may take a statement from a witness. That doesn’t mean the witness doesn’t have to answer questions from a homicide investigator.
d) “Mr. Shackle immediately called his immediate supervisor. Ms. Spooner, for clarification.”
What had to be clarified? What is the District policy for cooperating with law enforcement investigations? Is there a policy that states don’t give statements to investigators if you didn’t see the crime?
e) “Ms. Spooner emphasized that school should not write the investigative report for the SRO, as this incident was under the ECSO jurisdiction.”
i) The SUV investigator wasn’t asking Shackle to write her investigative report.
ii) Does Dobbs understand the difference between SVU and SRO?
iii) If this was under ECSO jurisdiction, why did the school ever investigate it? Remember Spooner had known about the incident for a week.
iv) If there was a legal question involved, why wasn’t the School District attorney Donna Waters consulted? Was she?
f) “There was a brief period of time where this developed into a misconception that it may not have been appropriate to prepare a personal statement regarding a collection of information related to this incident.”
i) I have struggled with what this sentence means. What collection of information? Whose misconception?
ii) This is another sentence that doesn’t appear to have been written by a competent, independent investigator.
g) “That was clarified in less than an hour after communication between the Sheriff’s Department and the Office of the Superintendent.” Dobbs conspicuously fails to mention who communicated at ECSO and Office of Superintendent. Did Dobbs interview anyone at ECSO or is he relying solely on statements from school officials?
h) “All District personnel requested to provide statements to the ECSO SVU Investigator have done so.” According to ECSO timeline, we know that it would be another week before the SVU investigator interviewed the dean and principal.
i) “Those statements were provided to the SRO for transmission to the ECSO Investigator.”
If this was cleared up within an hour on March 7, then why weren’t they just given directly to SVU Investigator. Were those statements each done independently? Did Spooner, Shackle or anyone review the statements before they were given to ECSO?
6. Dobbs writes that no district employee violated any policy, procedure or law. However, he doesn’t write what those policies, procedures or laws are. A professional report would have stated the each policyor procedure and then how the principal, dean, etc. followed it.
7. Dobbs squarely places blame on the SRO without questioning him. He has concluded SRO Small needed a refresher course on juvenile criminal statutes. He writes District staff needs more training on evidence collection–without saying why. Where was the staff weak in evidence collection? He has already said all policies, procedures and laws were followed.
I’ve read Dobbs’ reports on other investigations and have found them to be of a much higher caliber than this document. His report on the Tate incident leaves more questions than answers. If the School Board accepts this report as complete, then they will be doing a great injustice to the parents and children that they serve.