Today was the day some people remembered the Baylor sexual assault scandal happened while Ken Starr was president.
But what I've seen so far left out something really key: The steps Baylor leadership intentionally took to keep facts, names and documents out of the public eye.
But what I've seen so far left out something really key: The steps Baylor leadership intentionally took to keep facts, names and documents out of the public eye.
Baylor commissioned an investigation by outside counsel. But the final report from them left everyone anonymous. All it says is bad things happened. But by who? And who knew? Who did nothing? It never says. I wrote about that issue here: deadspin.com/baylor-is-full…
A Baylor regent later tried to "excuse" this by claiming that they didn't have the money to get a full report. Yes, he wants you to believe that a university with a billion-dollar endowment can't afford a better report. deadspin.com/baylor-regent-…
As for why the final report was so light on details, the same regent claimed it was "an oral report so the process of writing would take four to six months." No, really, these are things said on the record I am not making this up. kwtx.com/content/news/B…
Sources later confirmed to ESPN that, yup, these things that seem left out on purpose were totally on purpose. espn.com/espn/otl/story… 
Years ago, I did a FOIA request for emails to certain city leaders around the time the report was released. A Baylor official, clearly trying to avoid a public record, just sent emails one day saying call me. That was it.
Add to this that Baylor is a private university, so it is not subject to public records/FOIA law. There is a group of women suing the university, and that case is ongoing. Baylor is fighting hard to not produce records in that case.
So what do we know about what Ken Starr knew? It's tough to say -- but that's because of intentional steps taken by Baylor leadership to hide the truth. And who does that benefit? People like Starr.
