In the most recent report — examined by the university's Title IX office in early 2023 — witnesses allege that the practitioner talked about escaping the previous investigations unscathed and explained that a maneuver described by a previous victim was indeed sexual. 

He then reportedly demonstrated it on another attendee of the training. That person, however, told investigators it didn’t happen, prompting MSU to close its inquiry into the claims.

The previously unreported claims could play a role in the ostensibly ongoing federal probe, though its future is largely unclear, as are those of the Department of Education’s 21 other open civil rights investigations into MSU. 

The university told The State News it hasn’t heard anything from the oversight agency as the administration of President Donald Trump brazenly depletes its staff and halts investigations.

The victim in the Olin center case opened by the department said she too doesn’t know what lies ahead.

“I haven’t heard anything from investigators,” she said. “I don’t know if the investigators even work for the government anymore.”

After reviewing the new report, she did think it could underscore her previous allegations that the practitioner’s supposed medical treatment was actually a means to sexually assault her.

“As absurd as (his) behavior may seem, it is consistent with my experience and supports my case,” said the victim, who does not wish to be publicly identified.

The most recent report also reveals a third previous claim against the practitioner. 

The State News has previously reported on the 2022 case under federal consideration and a similar claim in 2020. An investigator’s notes in the new report mentions another 2020 Title IX report, which was “closed for not being within (the Title IX office’s) scope.”

The most recent report centers around the practitioner's conduct at a December 2022 training on sexual violence. It was just days after he won the final appeal in a previous case.

The State News obtained the case file through a Freedom of Information Act Request. 

In a written complaint, a group of witnesses wrote that “an attendee expressed and demonstrated some concerning behaviors” which “rose to the level of a severe safety concern in our opinion, that we felt a need to report these concerns.”

They explained that the practitioner talked about being the subject of previous investigations but was not found responsible each time. He then reportedly told attendees about some sort of precaution he was no longer taking, though redactions obscure what it was.

The practitioner then reportedly told the group about how he “knew certain areas and touch points on the body that cause arousal.”

After the explanation, the witnesses wrote that the practitioner "proceeded to demonstrate his touching on (a person whose name is redacted) in front of us.”

That person reportedly “did not appear upset" but told the group they "could see how this could be arousing.”

“We are very concerned that this person is intentionally not following the (redacted) policy that was specifically designed to keep people from harm,” they wrote. “We are also concerned about (his) inappropriate behavior demonstrated in front of us and (his) attempt to explain (his) touching of people.”

The alleged incident is "particularly disturbing" to the victim in his previous case, she said, given its direct connection to her allegations. In her 2022 complaint, she explained how she experienced arousal during an appointment with the practitioner as he touched her under the guise of medical treatment, describing the same touching he reportedly detailed during the training months later.

The person who the practitioner reportedly demonstrated his method on, however, disputed the report, telling MSU's investigators that they weren't touched during the training.

They did tell investigators that the practitioner “talked to the organizers about giving thought to the terminology they used.”

“While someone could be a victim of a (redacted), a (redacted) could also be the victim of a false report,” the practitioner reportedly told those leading the sexual violence training.

With that, MSU closed its inquiry.

Investigators explained their decision in an email sent to the witnesses, who wondered why the university wasn’t pursuing the case. The only victim of a policy violation would be the person reportedly touched, they reasoned, and that person denied the claim and didn’t want to participate in an investigation.

“This is one of our standard reasons for closure,” a staffer wrote. “If a potential Claimant does not want to participate/speak to an investigator, the case is typically closed.”

Title IX investigators did not speak to the practitioner during their review or notify him that a claim was filed at all. Reached by The State News, he declined to comment.

The State News is not including his name in this article because, to date, he has not been found responsible for a violation by MSU’s investigators or charged with a crime.

At the time the new report was filed, campus police were pursuing a criminal investigation of the practitioner. But the case file of the new Title IX claim was never shared with them.

The report says that Title IX staff reached out to the MSU Police investigators working on the criminal case, but the officers said they didn’t need information on the new allegations. A spokesperson defended that decision, saying officers didn’t seek the new information because it “did not identify potential criminal conduct.”

The report put investigators in a difficult position, trying to balance the wishes of the supposed victim, concerns of the witnesses, and duty to scrutinize an employee who has repeatedly been accused of misconduct, said Nicole Bedera, a sociologist who studied Title IX investigations for her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Michigan.

“It would be inappropriate to force a victim to cooperate with an investigation against their will, but I'd argue it's also inappropriate to ignore sexual harassment when there are a lot of other ways to know what happened,” said Bedera, who reviewed a copy of the case file.

It’s not uncommon for victims to deny knowledge of wrongdoing when approached by investigators about reports filed by someone else, said Bedera, who recently published a book about Title IX investigations. They sometimes “feel blindsided” when contacted about a report by a witness or someone who heard about misconduct.

Victims also sometimes face conflicting pressures when the fate of an investigation into someone they work with lies with them, Bedera said. 

“It's a no-win situation,” she said. “If they move forward, then everyone will know it's their ‘fault’. If they refuse to participate, then the school will blame them for that too.”