Something Was Wrong

S25 Ep14: My Own Personal Olivia Benson

March 12, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The survivor experienced significant institutional betrayal from the University of Utah Title IX office, which appeared apathetic, discouraged reporting, and prioritized its student athletes over her safety. 
  • The police investigation was severely hampered by the initial detective's inappropriate personal relationship with the survivor and the subsequent loss of crucial evidence, including the perpetrator's recorded interview. 
  • Despite systemic failures by both the university and initial police handling, dedicated advocacy from the survivor's mother, a new detective, and a prosecutor ultimately allowed the case to advance toward the District Attorney's office for consideration. 

Segments

Initial University Contact Experience
Copied to clipboard!
(00:01:50)
  • Key Takeaway: The Title IX office at the University of Utah was initially unresponsive until the survivor explicitly mentioned being raped by a student athlete.
  • Summary: After the assault, the survivor first contacted UVU’s Title IX office, which was easier after telling her parents. Upon contacting the University of Utah Title IX office, they were initially slow to respond until the survivor stated the perpetrator was one of their student athletes. The intake person repeatedly emphasized the office’s neutrality and limited ability to help because the survivor was not a student.
Title IX Process Explanation
Copied to clipboard!
(00:04:16)
  • Key Takeaway: The Title IX intake person presented the formal investigation as draining and often fruitless, heavily favoring an ‘alternate resolution’ lacking mandated consequences.
  • Summary: The intake person described the formal investigation process as lengthy and often without resolution, while promoting an ‘alternate resolution’ where the survivor writes a letter and the perpetrator chooses whether to respond or take accountability. Consequences offered in the alternate resolution focused on education or ensuring practice attendance, with no mention of suspension or formal disciplinary action for the perpetrator.
Institutional Betrayal and Context
Copied to clipboard!
(00:06:43)
  • Key Takeaway: The Title IX office dismissed off-campus substance abuse issues despite the perpetrator being a student athlete, suggesting the university prioritized protecting its athletes.
  • Summary: The Title IX representative stated they could not address the perpetrator’s intoxication, as the party was off-campus, even though he was a football player who spent most of his time on campus. The representative showed immediate interest only when a ‘star athlete’ acquaintance of the survivor was mentioned, suggesting a hierarchy of concern based on the perpetrator’s status. The survivor felt the university was avoiding a public spectacle, likely due to the recent high-profile murder of Lauren McCluskey the previous year.
Post-Meeting Confusion and Research
Copied to clipboard!
(00:10:01)
  • Key Takeaway: The University of Utah Title IX office sent a generic follow-up email that contradicted the survivor’s actual meeting experience, prompting her to research official obligations.
  • Summary: The follow-up email from the University of Utah Title IX office listed positive outcomes that never occurred during the meeting, leading the survivor to question its authenticity. Researching Title IX requirements revealed that the office failed to provide mandated resources like referrals to the Rape Recovery Center or support groups. The survivor realized the system designed to help victims was failing to follow its own guidelines.
Police Contact and Detective Smith
Copied to clipboard!
(00:13:45)
  • Key Takeaway: The initial assigned detective, Detective Smith, built a close, personal relationship with the survivor, advising her against responding to the university’s communications.
  • Summary: The survivor initially felt reassured by Detective Smith, who relayed that the police department had ongoing issues with the University of Utah’s reporting methods. Detective Smith advised the survivor not to engage with the university’s subsequent emails, deeming them unproductive. The detective later communicated with the survivor and her mother using her personal phone number, discussing personal topics like religion and sexuality.
Case Closure and Police Misconduct
Copied to clipboard!
(00:22:30)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivor discovered her police case had been closed for nearly a year without her knowledge due to the initial detective’s negligence or intentional omission of communication logs.
  • Summary: When the survivor’s mother contacted the police captain about the case limbo, they learned the case had been closed since October 2019, just two weeks after the assault. Detective Smith had failed to log any of the extensive communication or interviews conducted over the preceding year on her work file. The new detective confirmed that the perpetrator’s crucial interview was lost, as Detective Smith’s logs automatically erased due to lack of entry.
New Detective and Case Reopening
Copied to clipboard!
(00:26:06)
  • Key Takeaway: The new detective, who had met the survivor initially at the hospital, had to essentially restart the investigation due to the missing documentation from Detective Smith.
  • Summary: The new detective found the case file contained only a few one-sentence entries from Detective Smith indicating failed contact attempts, contradicting the survivor’s documented year of communication. The new detective prioritized gathering complete evidence, including the missing perpetrator interview, to strengthen the case for the District Attorney. The DNA results later confirmed sexual intercourse, contradicting the perpetrator’s initial statement to Detective Smith.
Advocacy and DNA Evidence
Copied to clipboard!
(00:31:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivor credits her advocate, Alex, and her prosecutor for fighting for her case after the systemic failures she experienced with the university and initial police work.
  • Summary: The survivor found significant support from Alex, an advocate with the Utah Crime Victim Advocates, who provided crucial support during appointments and difficult conversations. Forensic DNA analysis indicated the perpetrator could not be ruled out, with semen and saliva samples found internally, contradicting his denial of intercourse. The case was then sent to screening, where the DA’s office requested further information, including the University of Utah’s Title IX records.
Screening Results and DA Involvement
Copied to clipboard!
(00:43:38)
  • Key Takeaway: The case passed initial screening but required further investigation before the DA would commit to filing charges, leading to the discovery that the initial detective had resigned and left the country.
  • Summary: The screening process resulted in a request for more information, specifically the Title IX documentation from the University of Utah, rather than an outright decline or acceptance. The survivor later learned from the prosecutor that the former detective, Detective Smith, had resigned from the police force and moved to Croatia. The prosecutor, whom the survivor highly respected, was instrumental in pushing the case forward after the previous mishandling.
Final University and Legal Statements
Copied to clipboard!
(00:52:07)
  • Key Takeaway: The University of Utah confirmed the perpetrator was suspended after learning his identity, but a judge later ruled the university was not liable under Title IX because the assault occurred at an off-campus party.
  • Summary: The University of Utah stated that once the perpetrator, Sion Lund, was identified, he was suspended and removed from the team, and he later pled guilty in 2023. A judge ruled the university could not be held liable under Title IX because the party occurred at a private residence off-campus, lacking the required nexus to the university. Utah Valley University declined to comment publicly on the case due to privacy laws and confidentiality.