When San Jose State University released an independent investigation into allegations that head athletic trainer Scott Shaw inappropriately touched female athletes during his decade with the school,  there was no quibbling in its findings:

“All the allegations were substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence” and “Shaw engaged in sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.”

Those acts, the report said last month, violated university policies.

But did they break the law?

Typically, experts on such cases say, the local police would be investigating just that. But in an intriguing and perhaps foreboding sign, the FBI is involved, interviewing victims, witnesses and university staff. It’s the same agency that investigated the notorious case of Larry Nassar in Michigan, where hundreds of young gymnasts in dramatic testimony accused the sports doctor of sexual assault under the guise of medical treatment. He pleaded guilty in 2018 to sexually abusing 10 minors and is serving a 175-year sentence.

For the FBI to become involved in the San Jose State case, “it sounds like somebody brought them in, if I were to guess,” said John Clune, a Colorado lawyer specializing in sex abuse and Title IX cases, “someone who is connected, whether a politician or otherwise, has roped them in.”

Shaw has never been arrested or charged in connection with the case. He was originally cleared by the university in 2010 after 17 female swimmers came forward with complaints that he had reached into their bras and underwear during treatments. But Shaw abruptly resigned last August, months into a new investigation that validated the accusations. In recent weeks, you could find him at his little blue bungalow in a sweatshirt and shorts, recently retired from San Jose State — and declining interviews.

Former San Jose State University trainer Scott Shaw appears in a 2018 promotional video from the university. (San Jose State University via YouTube) 

The growing scandal at San Jose State took a new turn Friday when the university demoted Athletic Director Marie Tuite to a fundraising role after complaints and lawsuits over her handling of the case and management style.

“There’s no closure for anybody,” said Shawna Bryant, who used to work beside Shaw as an athletic trainer and has spoken recently with some of the former athletes who came forward. “It’s been really hard on a lot of people.”

Whether the FBI is focusing on Shaw specifically or targeting how the university handled the case is also uncertain.

In a statement, an FBI spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny the agency’s involvement. Former swimmers involved in the case, along with a former gymnast who was 17 when she says abuse began in 2014, told the Bay Area News Group they have been interviewed by federal agents. And Bryant says she was questioned on Zoom this March by a half-dozen agents from the FBI as well as the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. She said she has never been contacted by university police.

“They asked what happened, what did you see?” Bryant recounted in an interview this week. “They asked whether he continued to work on female athletes.”

The explosive allegations that first surfaced last year in an exposé by USA Today so far have focused on how the university could have allowed an athletic trainer accused in 2009 of sexually abusing 17 women, including at least one minor, to continue treating female athletes over the course of another 12 years. The university now faces at least three lawsuits from coaches or administrators who say they were retaliated against or terminated for continuing to insist Shaw was a threat.

But equally perplexing is what has become of any criminal investigations. Will Shaw face charges? And what, really, is the FBI getting at?

The allegations against Shaw date back to 2009, when the 17 swimmers told their coach they felt uncomfortable when Shaw touched them under their bras and underwear when treating shoulder or hip injuries. The university’s original investigation in 2010 through its human resources department cleared Shaw and declared his “pressure point therapy” was a “bona fide” treatment for muscle injuries.

It was a finding that would be reversed last month when the new independent review by an outside law firm substantiated many of the 2009 complaints after all and added two more victims since 2017. There was no therapeutic justification for touching the women in their private areas, the new review determined.

“They should have arrested him,” said Rob Mezzetti, a San Jose lawyer who has represented numerous sexual abuse survivors, including Catholic altar boys. “No doubt they should have arrested him, especially in regard to the minor.”

The cases bring to light the tricky reporting requirements of sexual abuse on college campuses and when or whether law enforcement should be involved. Cases involving minors — which include freshmen who are still 17 — must be reported to police by mandatory reporters, which include most university employees including coaches.

The women’s swim coach, Sage Hopkins, did just that. According to interviews and documents, Hopkins notified the University Police Department at least three times about 17-year-old female athletes alleging abuse by Shaw, first in 2009, next in 2013 stemming from a 2009 case, and again a few months ago when a new victim, a gymnast, came forward alleging she was touched inappropriately by Shaw beginning in 2014.

What became of those three cases, however, is unclear. The university police referred several calls asking for information to the university’s media relations office, which did not return repeated emails.

For the rest of the cases involving athletes 18 or older, Hopkins took the complaints to the campus office charged with enforcing Title IX, a federal law that protects people from discrimination based on gender. There’s no mandatory reporting to police for people over the age of 18. Instead, the university is required to respond to allegations of gender-based harassment or abuse.

Clune, the Colorado sex crimes lawyer, calls the San Jose State scandal “a disaster.”

“If 17 female swimmers are saying he’s inappropriately touching them, how many busloads of women do you need before you actually do something?” Clune asked. “For the remedy to be ‘we won’t let him massage these overly sensitive swimmers’ — which must be how they rationalized it — and see him go on and offend other athletes, that should have been predictable.”

Whether any of the adult victims are pressing charges on their own is unclear. It’s their prerogative to decide, Clune says. A number of them have filed legal claims against San Jose State, setting up their right to sue.

Where the investigation goes from here remains to be seen.

But Bryant says she hopes she finds out this time the results of any investigation — unlike in 2010 when Shaw was back in the training room treating female athletes and she was never told why. This time, the FBI assured her, things would be different.

“We were in the dark before,” Bryant said. “The FBI said we’re not going to be like that. You’ll know either way what comes out of it.”