University of Michigan OIE/Title IX “Nick Bee” Investigation: 18 Attempts to Obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s Participation, an Unresolved Identity, and a Later Evidentiary Asymmetry
During the November 12, 2018 University of Michigan 5.09 proceedings, Dr. Bradley Foerster testified that “Nick Bee” had not been investigated and questioned Michigan Medicine Chief Information Security Officer Jack Kufahl about whether e-mails attributed to “Nick Bee” could be investigated through their original headers, IP-address information, and related technical data. Kufahl explained that the answer depended on multiple variables and would require the original e-mail with its full headers.
Five days later, during the continued November 17, 2018 proceedings, Medical Dean’s outside counsel, Mr. Daniel Tukel, introduced the October 1, 2018 University of Michigan Office for Institutional Equity (OIE)/Title IX memorandum concerning “Nick B.” The memorandum documented University review of identity-related evidence, repeated efforts to obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s participation, and involvement of the Office of the General Counsel.
The memorandum arose from an OIE complaint submitted by Dr. Myria Petrou regarding “Nick B.” It was dated October 1, 2018 — the day after Dr. Petrou’s September 30, 2018 resignation from the University of Michigan Department of Radiology.
Dr. Petrou was not provided the completed memorandum by OIE. It surfaced in Dr. Foerster’s dismissal proceedings when Mr. Tukel introduced it on November 17, 2018.
Related material: November 2018 5.09 Testimony of Jack Kufahl, Chief Information Security Officer of Michigan Medicine, Concerning “Nick B.” E-Mails and IP Address Tracking
The OIE record documents considerably more than an unidentified sender.
It reflects allegations attributed to an individual using the name “Nick Bee,” repeated efforts by Dr. Petrou to obtain institutional review, recorded telephone conversations, an August 2017 “Nick Bee” e-mail, Office of the General Counsel efforts to identify the individual, and repeated OIE efforts to obtain information from Dr. Paul Cronin.
A contemporaneous June 28, 2017 record further reflects that Dr. Petrou raised the matter with Chair Dr. Reed Dunnick during an annual review meeting, including “Nick,” calls routed through the University switchboard, asserted departmental affiliation, and asserted connections to Dr. Cronin.
The later OIE memorandum documents:
- 18 attempts to obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s participation
- Dr. Reed Dunnick’s acknowledgment that he saw the August 2017 “Nick Bee” e-mail
- recordings and identity-related evidence reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel
- interviews and voice comparisons involving possible identities
- and an identity that remained unresolved
Despite those investigative steps, the identity of “Nick Bee” was never determined.
University of Michigan OIE Memorandum: “Nick Bee” Allegations and Institutional Review
Timeline of Key Events
June 28, 2017 — During an annual review meeting with Drs. Reed Dunnick and Ashok Srinivasan, Dr. Myria Petrou discusses “Nick,” calls through the University of Michigan switchboard, asserted departmental affiliation, and asserted friendship with Dr. Paul Cronin.
August 2017 — An e-mail attributed to “Nick Bee” circulates within University channels. During his later OIE interview, Dr. Dunnick states that he saw the e-mail and became aware of the rumor involving Dr. Petrou and Dr. Cronin.
August 2017 — The University Office of the General Counsel, including Kara Morgenstern and Christine Gerdes, undertakes efforts to identify the individual using the name “Nick Bee,” including review of recordings and interviews of physicians whose names might correspond to that identity.
March 6–June 15, 2018 — OIE Associate Director David Baum repeatedly attempts to arrange an interview with Dr. Paul Cronin. The OIE memorandum states that Baum sent 18 e-mail messages attempting to schedule the meeting. Dr. Cronin responded to a number of those messages, but the memorandum states that he never proposed dates on which he could meet.
July 24, 2018 — OIE interviews Dr. Reed Dunnick regarding the allegations raised by Dr. Petrou.
October 1, 2018 — One day after Dr. Petrou’s resignation, OIE finalizes its memorandum regarding the “Nick Bee” allegations.
Related material: University of Michigan Police Records Following OGC Referral of Dr. Myria Petrou’s Resignation Letter
Institutional Awareness and Request for Investigation
The OIE memorandum reflects that Dr. Myria Petrou reported allegations involving an individual known as “Nick Bee,” Dr. Paul Cronin, and false assertions of paternity.
The memorandum further states that Dr. Petrou asked Dr. Reed Dunnick to investigate the matter, which he declined to do.
Other contemporaneous records later produced separately reference a June 28, 2017 annual review meeting involving Drs. Dunnick and Srinivasan in which Dr. Petrou discussed:
- “Nick”
- switchboard calls
- asserted departmental affiliation
- and asserted friendship with Dr. Paul Cronin
During his later OIE interview, Dr. Dunnick stated that in August 2017 he saw an e-mail from “Nick Bee” and therefore became aware of the rumor involving Dr. Petrou and Dr. Cronin. He described the rumor as “incredible.”
OIE Contacts Dr. Paul Cronin 18 Times
The memorandum identifies Dr. Paul Cronin as a person from whom OIE sought information concerning the allegations.
Between March 6 and June 15, 2018, OIE documented 18 e-mail messages attempting to schedule an interview with Dr. Cronin.
The underlying correspondence reflects repeated efforts by OIE to obtain a date for the interview. Dr. Cronin responded at various points regarding scheduling and availability, but the memorandum states that he never proposed dates on which he could meet.
The sequence continued for more than three months.
On June 14, 2018, OIE again sought to arrange the interview, asking Dr. Cronin to provide his availability even if the meeting itself had to occur several weeks later.
Dr. Cronin responded on June 15 that he was still working on a date that would not interfere with his clinical and academic commitments and that he would advise OIE once he had available time.
No OIE interview of Dr. Cronin is documented as having occurred.
The consequence appears expressly in OIE’s own assessment. The memorandum states that because Dr. Cronin did not make himself available for interview, further inquiry into several of the allegations was not possible.
Why Dr. Cronin’s Participation Mattered
The significance of those 18 attempts becomes clearer when the allegations attributed to “Nick” are placed in context.
“Nick” did not simply present himself as an unidentified observer. He claimed to be a colleague of Dr. Cronin and made allegations concerning Dr. Foerster, Dr. Petrou, and Dr. Cronin that extended beyond an internal workplace dispute.
Among the allegations attributed to “Nick” was that Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou were extorting Dr. Cronin over an alleged sex scandal involving Dr. Petrou.
Those allegations became part of the continuing Ann Arbor Police Department criminal investigation and resulting civil litigation and were later referenced in Charge 4 of Dean Marschall Runge’s dismissal charge letter.
The unidentified individual was therefore invoking Dr. Cronin’s name and purported relationship to him while making allegations of criminal conduct involving Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou.
That placed Dr. Cronin in a distinctive position to address a threshold factual question: what, if anything, did he know about the unidentified individual claiming to be his colleague and making allegations concerning alleged crimes against him?
OIE attempted to obtain that evidence 18 times.
Dr. Cronin was not interviewed.
Interview of Dr. Reed Dunnick
On July 24, 2018, OIE interviewed Dr. Reed Dunnick regarding the allegations raised by Dr. Petrou.
According to the memorandum, Dr. Dunnick stated that:
- he had no knowledge whether Dr. Petrou and Dr. Cronin were having an affair
- he saw the August 2017 “Nick Bee” e-mail and became aware of the rumor
- he described the rumor as “incredible”
- he denied spreading the allegations or pressuring Dr. Cronin to make false statements
- he did not recall Dr. Petrou asking him to investigate the matter in June 2017
- and he stated that he would have referred such a matter to Kara Morgenstern in the Office of the General Counsel
Office of General Counsel Review of the “Nick Bee” Identity
The memorandum reflects that the University’s Office of the General Counsel possessed:
- the August 14, 2017 “Nick Bee” e-mail
- recordings of telephone conversations involving an individual using that identity
- and text messages from Dr. Cronin concerning the possible identity of “Nick Bee”
The memorandum further states that OGC identified several physicians whose names could correspond to “Nick Bee,” interviewed selected individuals, and compared their voices with the recordings.
According to the memorandum, the individuals interviewed were excluded as “Nick Bee.”
The identity of “Nick Bee” was not determined.
The memorandum therefore documents an identity-review process involving recordings, an e-mail, physician interviews, voice comparisons, and information from Dr. Cronin.
The memorandum does not reflect that either Dr. Myria Petrou or Dr. Bradley Foerster were contacted by OGC as participants in that identity-review process.
Related Deposition Record
Separate sworn deposition testimony by Dr. Paul Cronin later addressed the “Nick” issue directly.
Dr. Cronin stated that he did not have a friend named “Nick,” did not recognize the voice presented in recordings, and denied speaking with any individual named “Nick” about Dr. Bradley Foerster or Dr. Myria Petrou.
Related material: Goosileaks Excerpts (2017) — “Nick,” Paul Cronin, and University of Michigan Institutional Awareness
Dr. Cronin’s Nonparticipation—and Who Bore Its Consequences
The significance of Dr. Cronin’s nonparticipation did not end with the OIE investigation.
OIE had documented 18 attempts to obtain Dr. Cronin’s participation concerning an unidentified individual who claimed to be his colleague and whose allegations had entered a criminal investigation, civil litigation, and ultimately Dr. Foerster’s dismissal record.
Months later, during Dr. Foerster’s 5.09 proceedings, Dr. Foerster expressly asked Dr. Cronin to provide testimony under oath.
On October 25, 2018, Dr. Foerster advised Dr. Cronin that he had been identified as a party of interest to provide witness testimony and told him:
“Your testimony is crucial to protect my employment rights and good name.”
Dr. Cronin acknowledged the request that afternoon:
“Hi Brad
I will check my schedule
Paul”
Dr. Cronin did not testify.
During the subsequent SACUA review, Dean Runge’s outside attorney, Mr. Daniel Tukel, then relied on the absence of evidence directly from Dr. Cronin in challenging Dr. Foerster’s account.
Mr. Tukel emphasized:
“we have nothing from Dr. Cronin himself”
and:
“he didn't testify, he didn't submit an affidavit”
Mr. Tukel later returned to the same absence:
“Nothing from Dr. Cronin was submitted no written statement, no affidavit, no recorded statement, nothing.”
Mr. Tukel also offered a possible explanation for Dr. Cronin’s failure to testify, suggesting that Dr. Cronin may not have participated because Dr. Foerster had sued him.
But in doing so, Mr. Tukel inserted another qualification:
“if he was even asked to testify and we don't know whether he was”
The contemporaneous October 25, 2018 correspondence answers that question.
Dr. Cronin had been asked.
Dr. Foerster expressly requested Dr. Cronin’s testimony under oath, and Dr. Cronin acknowledged the request. The correspondence does not establish why Dr. Cronin ultimately did not testify.
The resulting asymmetry lies not simply in Dr. Cronin’s repeated nonparticipation, but in who ultimately bore the evidentiary consequences of that nonparticipation.
When OIE sought Dr. Cronin’s evidence concerning an unidentified individual invoking Dr. Cronin’s name while making allegations of criminal conduct against Dr. Foerster and Dr. Petrou, OIE documented 18 attempts but did not obtain the interview.
When Dr. Foerster later expressly sought Dr. Cronin’s sworn testimony in proceedings threatening Dr. Foerster’s tenured employment, Dr. Cronin again did not participate.
This time, however, the absence of evidence from Dr. Cronin was invoked by Dean’s counsel against Dr. Foerster as a reason to challenge Dr. Foerster’s account — even as counsel questioned whether Dr. Foerster had asked Dr. Cronin to testify at all.
The unanswered questions concerned Dr. Cronin. The evidentiary consequence fell on Dr. Foerster.
Related material: “If He Was Even Asked to Testify”: Dr. Paul Cronin and the Missing Critical Witness in Dr. Bradley Foerster’s 5.09 Proceedings
That record examines Dr. Foerster’s request that Dr. Cronin testify under oath and the later use of Dr. Cronin’s absence during the SACUA review.
Later Disclosure of the OIE Memorandum
Dr. Petrou was never provided a copy of the October 1, 2018 OIE memorandum by OIE.
The memorandum later entered Dr. Bradley Foerster’s November 2018 Bylaw 5.09 proceedings, together with a separate OIE report involving Duaa Altaee.
Its appearance in the dismissal proceedings therefore placed into the 5.09 record the University’s own documentation of:
- the unresolved “Nick Bee” identity
- the OGC identity-review process
- and OIE’s 18 unsuccessful attempts to obtain Dr. Cronin’s participation
Documentation Summary
Taken together, the University records document a sequence involving:
- allegations attributed to an unidentified individual calling himself “Nick Bee”
- assertions by that individual that he was connected to Dr. Paul Cronin
- allegations of criminal conduct involving Dr. Foerster, Dr. Petrou, and Dr. Cronin
- recorded telephone conversations and e-mail evidence
- technical questions concerning whether the source of the e-mails could be identified
- Office of the General Counsel review of recordings and possible identities
- 18 documented attempts by OIE to obtain Dr. Cronin’s participation
- an OIE assessment expressly limited by the absence of an interview with Dr. Cronin
- and an identity that remained unresolved
The memorandum further reflects that neither Dr. Myria Petrou nor Dr. Bradley Foerster are identified as participants in the OGC identity-review process and that the completed October 1, 2018 memorandum was not provided directly to Dr. Petrou.
The later 5.09 record adds a separate procedural consequence. Dr. Foerster expressly sought Dr. Cronin’s sworn testimony; Dr. Cronin did not testify; and Dean’s counsel subsequently relied on the absence of evidence from Dr. Cronin while questioning whether Dr. Foerster had asked him to testify.
The contemporaneous record establishes that he had.
Exhibits
Certain identifying information has been redacted pursuant to a court-ordered confidentiality agreement.
Exhibit 1 — University of Michigan OIE Memorandum Concerning “Nick Bee” (October 1, 2018)
Office for Institutional Equity memorandum documenting allegations attributed to “Nick Bee,” efforts to obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s participation, and related Office of the General Counsel identity-review activity.
Page 1 — “Nick Bee” Allegations and Background
.png "OIE memorandum page documenting allegations attributed to Nick Bee involving Dr. Myria Petrou and Dr. Paul Cronin")
Opening section documenting allegations attributed to “Nick Bee” and related background involving Dr. Myria Petrou and Dr. Paul Cronin.
Page 2 — Request for Investigation and OIE Outreach to Dr. Paul Cronin
%202.png "OIE memorandum page describing request for investigation of Nick Bee allegations")
Section addressing Dr. Petrou’s request for investigation and the beginning of OIE’s efforts to obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s participation.
Page 3 — 18 Attempts to Obtain Dr. Paul Cronin’s Participation
%203.png "OIE memorandum page documenting repeated attempts to interview Dr. Paul Cronin regarding Nick Bee allegations")
OIE memorandum documenting 18 e-mail attempts to arrange an interview with Dr. Paul Cronin.
Page 4 — Interview of Dr. Reed Dunnick
.png "OIE memorandum page documenting interview of Dr. Reed Dunnick regarding Nick Bee communications")
OIE interview addressing Dr. Reed Dunnick’s knowledge of the “Nick Bee” communications and related allegations.
Page 5 — OGC Review of “Nick Bee” E-Mail, Recordings, and Possible Identities
%204.png "OIE memorandum page describing OGC review of Nick Bee recordings and email evidence")
Section documenting Office of the General Counsel review of the “Nick Bee” e-mail, recorded calls, and possible identities.
Page 6 — OGC Identity Review and Exclusion of Possible Individuals
%205.png "OIE memorandum page describing identification review and exclusion of possible Nick Bee individuals")
Continuation of the identity-review process, including interviews and comparison of possible individuals with the recorded voice.
Page 7 — OIE Assessment and Unresolved “Nick Bee” Identity
%206.png "OIE memorandum assessment and conclusion page addressing unresolved Nick Bee allegations")
Final assessment addressing the limits of the investigation, Dr. Cronin’s nonparticipation, and the unresolved identity of “Nick Bee.”
Exhibit 2 — June 28, 2017 Contemporaneous Record of Dr. Myria Petrou’s Annual Review Discussion Concerning “Nick”
Contemporaneous record reflecting Dr. Petrou’s discussion with Drs. Reed Dunnick and Ashok Srinivasan concerning “Nick,” University switchboard calls, asserted departmental affiliation, and an asserted connection to Dr. Paul Cronin.
Exhibit 3 — November 2018 Bylaw 5.09 Dismissal Proceeding Transcript Concerning the “Nick Bee” Investigation
Transcript excerpt from Dr. Bradley Foerster’s formal dismissal proceedings in which Medical Dean’s outside counsel Daniel Tukel addressed the University’s investigation and OIE findings concerning “Nick Bee.”
.png "Transcript page showing Dan Tukel statement regarding University investigation of Nick Bee")
%202.png "Transcript page continuing Dan Tukel statement regarding Nick Bee investigation during formal dismissal proceedings")
Transcript excerpt from the November 2018 Bylaw 5.09 dismissal proceedings addressing the University’s investigation and treatment of the “Nick Bee” allegations.
Exhibit 4 — OIE Attachment 2: March–June 2018 Correspondence Seeking Dr. Paul Cronin’s Participation
Attachment 2 to the OIE record reproducing correspondence between OIE Associate Director David Baum and Dr. Paul Cronin concerning repeated efforts to arrange an interview regarding the allegations under investigation.
Attachment 2 — Cover Page
Attachment 2 cover page.
Attachment 2, Page 1 — May 29–June 15, 2018: OIE Continues Seeking a Meeting Date
OIE continues seeking Dr. Cronin’s availability through June 2018. On June 15, Dr. Cronin states that he is still working on a date and will advise OIE once he has available time.
Attachment 2, Page 2 — May 17–22, 2018: OIE Seeks Availability Further Out
After additional scheduling difficulties, OIE asks Dr. Cronin to provide availability farther into the future; Dr. Cronin states that he will review his schedules and get back to OIE.
Attachment 2, Page 3 — May 1–14, 2018: Repeated Follow-Up Concerning May Availability
Correspondence documenting repeated OIE follow-up concerning the weeks of May 7–11 and May 14–18 and Dr. Cronin’s responses concerning his schedule.
Attachment 2, Page 4 — April 17–May 1, 2018: OIE Continues Requesting Availability
OIE continues proposing future time periods for a meeting while Dr. Cronin reports scheduling and travel conflicts.
Attachment 2, Page 5 — March 15–April 10, 2018: Proposed Dates and Continued Scheduling Efforts
Correspondence documenting OIE’s continued requests for availability following Dr. Cronin’s vacation and other scheduling conflicts.
Attachment 2, Page 6 — March 13–15, 2018: OIE Proposes Specific Meeting Dates
OIE proposes specific meeting dates and times; Dr. Cronin indicates that the proposed dates are unavailable.
Attachment 2, Page 7 — March 6–13, 2018: Initial OIE Request and Follow-Up
OIE’s March 6, 2018 initial request to speak with Dr. Cronin and March 13 follow-up after Dr. Cronin stated that he had not seen the earlier message.
Selected Reporting
- Bradley Foerster Submits 140-Exhibit, 1,121-Page Documentary Chronology to FBI for Supervisory Review of the Investigation Involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, Dr. Myria Petrou, and Duaa Altaee
- From One FBI File to a Legislative Proposal: Peter and Maria Foerster Ask Senator Van Hollen's Office and Congressman Jamie Raskin to Consider a Uniform Administrative Framework for Federal Investigations
- Eva Feldman Documentary Chronology: 139 Exhibits on NIH R01NS082304, University Proceedings, and Federal Investigation — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Send Ann Arbor Officials Documentary Chronology on AAPD and Related Federal Investigations — No Response Received
- Timothy Lynch Documentary Chronology: 63 Exhibits on University of Michigan Office of General Counsel, University Investigations, and Law Enforcement — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Documentary Chronology: 8 Exhibits Document More Than Two Years of Efforts to Trace Bank of Ann Arbor's $1.4 Million Sheriff's Sale Credit Bid — No Response Received
Brad Foerster, MD PhD
Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.