Is It a Crime Only If It's Sexual?

A woman nearly lost her life after being attacked in a UCLA parking lot.  We have evidence--in writing--that the University of California conspired to cover up that crime.  Two candidates for Governor, the Attorney General, our Senators, our Supervisors, and many other public officials were made aware of the University's destructive, immoral, and illegal treatment of that victim but...NOBODY CARED.

A call to Dianne Feinstein's San Francisco office elicited the contemptuous response, "You keep writing to us as if you expect us to do something."

A year after the devastating crime, after the University's second Workers' Comp provider tossed the case out without investigation, after Judge Patricia L. Collins tossed the case out of court, without hearing evidence beyond the University lawyer's plea of poverty, a woman in then-Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl's office told us to stop complaining because the University had done all it could do for us.

TO us, actually.  And the proof?

She sent us the following police letter which explained all.  Except, it was all a lie.

I wrote to the Board of Regents, the University President, UCLA's Chancellor and every relevant public official, reiterating the truth to them--which they already know, but ignored.

Falsified medical records, along with this hateful, audacious letter, allowed the University to stonewall with impunity and evade responsibility for the campus police refusal to investigate reports of a violent crime, committed just yards from their station; it inflicted constant and continuing torment on a victim already suffering permanent impairment from the attack; and, it provided evidence of a conspiracy--from the campus police, to University presidents, including Janet Napolitano, and to California public officials.

The letter states, "UCLA Police Officers responded to the Emergency Room after being called to investigate an on-campus injury."

Why didn't they respond hours earlier to the nurse from Unit A West who reported a violent assault and an assailant in parking lot 8?

"The officers interviewed Ms. Lideks regarding the nature of her injury.  At that time she did not know how she sustained the injury and was only able to provide a general time and location."

How did they "interview" a semi-conscious patient in the few seconds they remained in the room?  And are they saying she was lucid enough for an "interview," but didn't know when she left work or where she had parked?

And why didn't they ask me when I was sitting next to the door?  And how, after my sister was hospitalized, was I able to go directly to the spot where a hose was washing away a large pool of blood?  And why was I allowed to spend an hour--looking suspicious, I'm sure--with a pen in my hand, and every hope of being able to use it as a weapon on the assailant?

And the "injury" was actually a concussion from three major wounds to the head.

"She indicated that no property was missing from her purse."

She didn't have a purse.  She had a backpack--which would have prevented her from injuring the back of her head in a fall.  And, she had lain for an hour face down.

"Detectives from this department conducted a follow-up interview with Ms. Lideks."

Why is the date of this "follow-up" not mentioned?  Why aren't the detectives named?  Could it be because this "follow-up" occurred more than a month later?--and only after numerous written complaints to administrators?  And could it be that the purpose of this "follow-up" was for Detective Tony L. Duenas to apologize for police handling of the "assault" and to promise to post "the crime" on the police website--as required by the federal Clery Act?

"The interview produced no new information that would lead us to conclude Ms. Lideks was the victim of a crime.  The investigators advised her that we would not likely determine the cause of her injury and there was no further information to follow-up on."

A month after a crime which was never investigated by police "new information" would be hard to come by.  But, Det. Duenas had concluded that Ms Lideks was the victim of a crime.

Also, the hospital's doctor, as well as outside doctors, determined that the severe injuries resulted from multiple blows to the head.  A cursory glance at the wounds made any other conclusion impossible.

We trusted our judgment and that of competent doctors to "determine the cause of her injury" and never thought to ask the police to do it.

"They concluded the interview by asking Ms. Lideks what else she would like the police department to do for her.  She said that she was afraid that another nurse would be injured in a similar manner.  (We do not have enough information to generate a credible safety bulletin.)"

So, my poor sister, true to her nature, was worried that others might be attacked in the parking lot, but...the official police policy was, according to the operations lieutenant, to disregard her fears.

"The detectives also spoke to Ms. Lideks' sister, Mara.  Mara Lideks was adamant that her sister was the victim of an assault.  She even offered two theories, one of which involved a conspiracy by Mr. Guha (father of NPI suicide victim Sujan Guha) and the second in which she believes the incident was related to a series of 'carport robberies' in the area."

It's true I was adamant--and furious.  I had more than two theories, but the University wouldn't have wanted to use them in their disseminated cover-up of crime on campus.

The first, and most likely at the time, was that one of my sister's psychiatric patients from NPI was the assailant.  Many patients were allowed to roam free, and one even accosted me and my sister outside the University.

Another theory involved the University itself.  It had harassed and fired one of my sister's colleagues.  She had sued and won a large settlement after the doctor who supposedly complained about her testified that UCLA lied.  My sister and that brave doctor were about the only ones willing to testify to the truth.  A vengeful University did not seem out of the question to me.

And, yes, I mentioned Mr. Guha.  It was yet another case of the University's failure to protect employees.  But "conspiracy" was never mentioned or considered.  Was that word added so that I could be maligned as a "conspiracy nut" if I went after the University for abusing my sister?

"...we are unable to determine if Ms. Lideks was the victim of assault or a simple accidental fall victim.  We are considering the incident closed."

And that inane, worthless conclusion is what has been used repeatedly over the years to block any investigation; to deny my sister and our family justice.

Director of Administrative Policies and Compliance, William H. Cormier, was the designated responder to our numerous complaints.

A typical response:  "I regret that you are dissatisfied with the responses you have received from the University concerning its investigation into the cause of the injuries for which you were treated at the UCLA Medical Center in 2001.  You maintain you were the victim of a criminal attack in Parking Structure 8.  However, the UCLA Police Department was unable to conclude that a criminal attack occurred."

These people have no shame.

"As you have been previously informed, the University denies having made any deliberate falsifications and engaged in a cover-up and has concluded that further investigation of your claims at this time is not warranted."

Outgoing University President Mark Yudof sang the same tune.  After my sister wrote a nine-page complaint, including complete exposition of the police letter lies, he thanked her for her letter "regarding the University's investigation into the cause of the injuries for which you are now treated..." but, "William H. Cormier has responded to you on this matter." William H. Cormier later responded in behalf of Janet Napolitano, too, and cc'd her on it.

The University of California has knowingly and repeatedly used this irrelevant police cover-up to inflict further pain on our family, especially at a time when my sister requires further surgery at UCLA to correct a problem with the surgery ten years ago. 

Our family needs a good faith response from the University.  Coming clean about falsified medical records would be a good start.