After Reading the Report Thoughts

[GreasyGopher]

Just a random thought but why were any of these guys allowed to be interviewed without an attorney present or why were any of them allowed to be interviewed at all?

Nothing good came from their interviews.

This department doesn't have the power to subpoena witnesses. Why didn't Hutton tell his clients not to participate and present all evidence at the appeal hearing once the report was complete.

I'm sure they didn't feel like they had anything to hide but knowing the nature of the department conducting he investigation they had nothing to gain by participating.

This doesn't change the fact that some of these players likely deserve to be punished but you'd think they'd receive better legal advice.

The report was coming out one way or another. The report only uses the players interviews to discredit them further as they disagree with the main narrative.

 

[Wally]

Bob - with your legal background, I have a question for you. How can the woman not allow the EOAA to view the videos that the authorities were allowed to watch to base their decision? It seems to me that this was a crucial piece of evidence that was not looked at.

I agree and it troubled me as it's highly relevant.

 

[Livingat45north]

My thoughts after reading the report are that I lost a lot of respect for Winfield Sr.

... I watched the ESPN "Outside the Lines" coverage where Winfield Sr. was featured. He (Winfield Sr.) portrayed his son as being totally innocent, with no fault whatsoever, and completely a victim in this whole deal with the Kaler, Doyle and Claeys at fault. This is inspite of Winfield Sr. admitting that the person that was allegedly assaulted specifically identifyed Winfield Jr as being part of it all. My wife is a teacher, and everyone now and then a kid gets in trouble and instead of the parent disciplining the kid and showing the kid that personal responsibility is important, the parent blames the teachers and everyone else for the student's actions. At the time of the show I hadn't read the EOAA report but Winfield Sr. said he had. If I were the dad, having read the EOAA report, I certainly would have taken a different tone in that ESPN interview.

 

[Lakers612]

Just a random thought but why were any of these guys allowed to be interviewed without an attorney present or why were any of them allowed to be interviewed at all?

Nothing good came from their interviews.

This department doesn't have the power to subpoena witnesses. Why didn't Hutton tell his clients not to participate and present all evidence at the appeal hearing once the report was complete.

I'm sure they didn't feel like they had anything to hide but knowing the nature of the department conducting he investigation they had nothing to gain by participating.

This doesn't change the fact that some of these players likely deserve to be punished but you'd think they'd receive better legal advice.

The report was coming out one way or another. The report only uses the players interviews to discredit them further as they disagree with the main narrative.

To me, it sounds like Hutton was only representing the players that were under criminal investigation. I don't think the EOAA conducted their review until after the criminal investigation was over. At that time, only 4 of the 12 players the EOAA were looking at were directly involved in the criminal investigation, so I don't think 8 of the guys even thought they needed an attorney. EOAA probably conducted their own broad review, interview lots of players on the team to determine who was there.

by the time the EOAA had narrowed its search to the 12 players, it was probably too late for them to lawyer up. they had already told them everything they remember from that night...

which is BS that the EOAA would trust their findings more than the police, because the EOAA did so months after the alleged incident

 

[GopherMike]

The report is sickening. Wow.

If this is true, people should be in jail.

This -- 100 times over. What is in that report is sickening and depraved. How dare these punks come in a sully the university I have spent 44 years rooting for. Not just what they physically did to this woman, but the total lack of respect for her as a human being, like she was nothing more than a plaything for them to abuse in any way thet wanted. Anybody who is still upset with Kaler, Coyle and the EOAA needs to re-examine their life.

 

[tikited]

My thoughts after reading the report are that I lost a lot of respect for Winfield Sr.

... I watched the ESPN "Outside the Lines" coverage where Winfield Sr. was featured. He (Winfield Sr.) portrayed his son as being totally innocent, with no fault whatsoever, and completely a victim in this whole deal with the Kaler, Doyle and Claeys at fault. This is inspite of Winfield Sr. admitting that the person that was allegedly assaulted specifically identifyed Winfield Jr as being part of it all. My wife is a teacher, and everyone now and then a kid gets in trouble and instead of the parent disciplining the kid and showing the kid that personal responsibility is important, the parent blames the teachers and everyone else for the student's actions. At the time of the show I hadn't read the EOAA report but Winfield Sr. said he had. If I were the dad, having read the EOAA report, I certainly would have taken a different tone in that ESPN interview.

I thought he came off really bad even before the report.

 

[tikited]

This -- 100 times over. What is in that report is sickening and depraved. How dare these punks come in a sully the university I have spent 44 years rooting for. Not just what they physically did to this woman, but the total lack of respect for her as a human being, like she was nothing more than a plaything for them to abuse in any way thet wanted. Anybody who is still upset with Kaler, Coyle and the EOAA needs to re-examine their life.

Or maybe you should stop and think about everything involved in this...not just what made you angry.

 

[bizzle22]

I agree and it troubled me as it's highly relevant.

I don't see how it's highly relevant. Based on the story she told about the first two plus the police summary of the longer video it sounds like it would basically confirm her story.

 

[Ewert86PC]

There is a middle ground here. It is possible to believe the players acted shamefully - but ALSO believe the University has handled the situation poorly. That is where I'm at. I believe that some of the 10 players probably deserve to be suspended. (I feel expulsion is too harsh of a penalty) But, I also believe that some of the 10 players are being judged guilty through association, and don't deserve to be suspended. The EOAA's conclusions are based on believing the accuser, and not believing the players.

IF - and I say IF - the accuser does not remember the events clearly, there is at least a possibility that some players are being unfairly accused. There is a lot of grey area here. It is not as cut-and-dried as some people (on both side of the argument) are acting.

+100, for S.O.N.'s interpretation.

I think the players did some questionable things, not only in the actual acts, but spinning the interpretation of the events. The EOAA tried to counter spin and overspun the other way.

IMHO, the outrage was over the EOAA taking action against players who were previously unmentioned in public and not found in police report.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[GreasyGopher]

To me, it sounds like Hutton was only representing the players that were under criminal investigation. I don't think the EOAA conducted their review until after the criminal investigation was over. At that time, only 4 of the 12 players the EOAA were looking at were directly involved in the criminal investigation, so I don't think 8 of the guys even thought they needed an attorney. EOAA probably conducted their own broad review, interview lots of players on the team to determine who was there.

by the time the EOAA had narrowed its search to the 12 players, it was probably too late for them to lawyer up. they had already told them everything they remember from that night...

which is BS that the EOAA would trust their findings more than the police, because the EOAA did so months after the alleged incident

In a case like this everyone needs an attorney when being interviewed. Whether innocent or guilty. An attorney would have likely told the players not at the heart of the investigation not to even participate. Some of these players got caught up in this even though they weren't there and it likely all stems from their interviews.

 

[bizzle22]

To me, it sounds like Hutton was only representing the players that were under criminal investigation. I don't think the EOAA conducted their review until after the criminal investigation was over. At that time, only 4 of the 12 players the EOAA were looking at were directly involved in the criminal investigation, so I don't think 8 of the guys even thought they needed an attorney. EOAA probably conducted their own broad review, interview lots of players on the team to determine who was there.

by the time the EOAA had narrowed its search to the 12 players, it was probably too late for them to lawyer up. they had already told them everything they remember from that night...

which is BS that the EOAA would trust their findings more than the police, because the EOAA did so months after the alleged incident

You can twist it however you want. If you can't understand the differences between the levels of proof necessary and the reason that the process is in place then you shouldn't be commenting. (Not saying you can't, it's your right to do so. But I would recommend against it to keep yourself from looking so silly.)

 

[Pompous Elitist]

This -- 100 times over. What is in that report is sickening and depraved. How dare these punks come in a sully the university I have spent 44 years rooting for. Not just what they physically did to this woman, but the total lack of respect for her as a human being, like she was nothing more than a plaything for them to abuse in any way thet wanted. Anybody who is still upset with Kaler, Coyle and the EOAA needs to re-examine their life.

It's a good thing the university taught you critical thinking skills.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You can twist it however you want. If you can't understand the differences between the levels of proof necessary and the reason that the process is in place then you shouldn't be commenting. (Not saying you can't, it's your right to do so. But I would recommend against it to keep yourself from looking so silly.)

And you're not understanding that this is all about the process being fatally flawed and slanted. Nobody is defending rape or rapists, if that's what actually happened. Nothing in that report proves anything.

 

[Ewert86PC]

This -- 100 times over. What is in that report is sickening and depraved. How dare these punks come in a sully the university I have spent 44 years rooting for. Not just what they physically did to this woman, but the total lack of respect for her as a human being, like she was nothing more than a plaything for them to abuse in any way thet wanted. Anybody who is still upset with Kaler, Coyle and the EOAA needs to re-examine their life.

No, I think there is room to be upset at them for their part in further damaging the accuser by making a political issue out of her incident. Whether it was justified or not, broadening the scope of the investigation and adding players to sanction brought unnecessary duress on her because it opened the door to question her actual involvement in the incident as opposed to her on the record involvment.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[minny01]

And you're not understanding that this is all about the process being fatally flawed and slanted. Nobody is defending rape or rapists, if that's what actually happened. Nothing in that report proves anything.

And another of the group who you either agree with 100%, or you're wrong in their minds.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You can twist it however you want. If you can't understand the differences between the levels of proof necessary and the reason that the process is in place then you shouldn't be commenting. (Not saying you can't, it's your right to do so. But I would recommend against it to keep yourself from looking so silly.)

The burden to bring charges is essentially probable cause (much lower than preponderance of the evidence).
The burden to arrest is probable cause (much lower than preponderance of the evidence).

Charges were never filed and they were never arrested.

It is important to talk about burdens but to talk about them correctly, or else you might look silly.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

This -- 100 times over. What is in that report is sickening and depraved. How dare these punks come in a sully the university I have spent 44 years rooting for. Not just what they physically did to this woman, but the total lack of respect for her as a human being, like she was nothing more than a plaything for them to abuse in any way thet wanted. Anybody who is still upset with Kaler, Coyle and the EOAA needs to re-examine their life.

If wanted to be their plaything (it's a big if, but it is really common for athletes). . . isn't that her choice?

Or do you get to decide that?

 

[Lakers612]

You can twist it however you want. If you can't understand the differences between the levels of proof necessary and the reason that the process is in place then you shouldn't be commenting. (Not saying you can't, it's your right to do so. But I would recommend against it to keep yourself from looking so silly.)

I'm sure you believe the alleged victim had every right to plead the fifth in the restraining order hearing, that she had the right to forbid the EOAA from seeing the video and seeing her medical records.

If that's true, you should also believe the players have the same equal protections and due process

I understand why the EOAA is in place. I support its existence. But, right now, we don't know what happened with the EOAA's review. From my understanding, some of the players felt like they were mislead about the scope and purpose of the EOAA inquiry. That to me seems to indicate they did not have lawyers present.

As far as the credibility of the EOAA review, that will be hashed out in the upcoming hearings. I think you are being too quick to condemn these players as rapists. The review does not say this for a lot of players that have been suspended and have had their named muddied.

As righteous as you think you are right now, you are also marginalizing the rights of the players.

Did some of the players intentionally lie to the EOAA? Perhaps. But the discrepancies about what happened can be resolved if you look at the fact that the review occurred a long time after the incident occurred

 

[Wally]

I don't see how it's highly relevant. Based on the story she told about the first two plus the police summary of the longer video it sounds like it would basically confirm her story.

Confirm which of her stories. That she only had sex with anyone because she felt she had to. I think it likely could call into question her story as it did for the police.

 

[Gogogopher]

This is where you lose most of us because you are basing consent off of what you think it should be. Look at the student code of conduct and sexual harassment policy. That is what matters. Whether you agree with it or not these players (and all students) are bound by a code of conduct that says they must obtain affirmative consent.

And I'll say it for probably the tenth time...one of the players admitted that he heard her tell them to stop. There is no grey area there.

Yes, this x 1000. I will add that football players are representing the U in a very public way. Every major college football player knows this. The jockocracy gives these kids benefits, and a burden goes along with them. Part of that burden is upholding the student code of ethics. Thank god we aren't Baylor!!

 

[Gogogopher]

The burden to bring charges is essentially probable cause (much lower than preponderance of the evidence).
The burden to arrest is probable cause (much lower than preponderance of the evidence).

Charges were never filed and they were never arrested.

It is important to talk about burdens but to talk about them correctly, or else you might look silly.

He doesn't look silly. The burdens you note are correct, however prosecutors consider the likelihood of success when bringing cases.

This is from a study titled:
Prosecuting Sexual Assault: A Comparison of
Charging Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases
Involving Strangers, Acquaintances, and
Intimate Partners*

"Although there is general agreement that prosecutors’
attempts to avoid uncertainty (Albonetti, 1986; 1987) and “downstream orientation” to judges and juries (Frohmann, 1997) lead them to file charges only when the odds of conviction at trial are high, less agreement can be found on factors that define or determine convictability."

"Prosecutors were more likely to file charges if there was physical
evidence to connect the suspect to the crime, if the suspect had a prior criminal record, and if there were no questions about the victim’s character or behavior at the time of the incident. This suggests that prosecutors’ concerns about convictability lead them to file charges when they believe the evidence is strong, the suspect is culpable, and the victim is blameless. "

here is a link to the study:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199720.pdf

Here is quote from a prosecutor:
I am one of several lawyers working as prosecutors in the office of the State’s Attorney. While we all agree that a case should be dropped as soon as it becomes clear that there is little or no likelihood of winning a conviction, some of us think that a prosecutor may make an exception when that might bring about a better outcome, and I’d appreciate having your thoughts on the problem.

http://www.twotlj.org/G-3-178.html

Here's a prosecutor saying he won't charge because he has to consider the possibility of success

According to a transcript of that meeting, Ebrahim said it wasn’t his job to say whether or not he believed Reed, or tell her whether or not she had been raped. He explained that no one who had experienced a sex crime, or who had ever been accused of one, would end up sitting on the jury. So his job was to filter out cases in which 12 jurors, who “have no experience in any kind of sex crimes occurring in their life,” would concur beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape had taken place.

“And that is a mountain that is going to be very hard to climb in front of a jury in trying to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ebrahim said. “That’s the main problem here.”

“I need to clarify,” Reed pressed, “Regardless of the evidence that I have presented, you are worried about the way the jury is going to react to the evidence, and therefore screening out my case?”

“Yes,” Ebrahim responded. “I have to take into account what the jury’s going to do. I can’t just proceed on a case not taking into account what a reasonable jury would do, absolutely.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-press-charges_n_5500432.html

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

He doesn't look silly. The burdens you note are correct, however prosecutors consider the likelihood of success when bringing cases.

This is from a study titled:
Prosecuting Sexual Assault: A Comparison of
Charging Decisions in Sexual Assault Cases
Involving Strangers, Acquaintances, and
Intimate Partners*

"Although there is general agreement that prosecutors’
attempts to avoid uncertainty (Albonetti, 1986; 1987) and “downstream orientation” to judges and juries (Frohmann, 1997) lead them to file charges only when the odds of conviction at trial are high, less agreement can be found on factors that define or determine convictability."

"Prosecutors were more likely to file charges if there was physical
evidence to connect the suspect to the crime, if the suspect had a prior criminal record, and if there were no questions about the victim’s character or behavior at the time of the incident. This suggests that prosecutors’ concerns about convictability lead them to file charges when they believe the evidence is strong, the suspect is culpable, and the victim is blameless. "

here is a link to the study:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199720.pdf

Here is quote from a prosecutor:
I am one of several lawyers working as prosecutors in the office of the State’s Attorney. While we all agree that a case should be dropped as soon as it becomes clear that there is little or no likelihood of winning a conviction, some of us think that a prosecutor may make an exception when that might bring about a better outcome, and I’d appreciate having your thoughts on the problem.

http://www.twotlj.org/G-3-178.html

Here's a prosecutor saying he won't charge because he has to consider the possibility of success

According to a transcript of that meeting, Ebrahim said it wasn’t his job to say whether or not he believed Reed, or tell her whether or not she had been raped. He explained that no one who had experienced a sex crime, or who had ever been accused of one, would end up sitting on the jury. So his job was to filter out cases in which 12 jurors, who “have no experience in any kind of sex crimes occurring in their life,” would concur beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape had taken place.

“And that is a mountain that is going to be very hard to climb in front of a jury in trying to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ebrahim said. “That’s the main problem here.”

“I need to clarify,” Reed pressed, “Regardless of the evidence that I have presented, you are worried about the way the jury is going to react to the evidence, and therefore screening out my case?”

“Yes,” Ebrahim responded. “I have to take into account what the jury’s going to do. I can’t just proceed on a case not taking into account what a reasonable jury would do, absolutely.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-press-charges_n_5500432.html

I only said that he looked silly because he wasn't accurately describing the burdens and was calling someone else silly.

I fully understand the process of a prosecutor bring charges. It is much more of an art than a science. For sexual assault cases, if you think a prosecutor only brings charges in situations where they already have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, I think you're missing a bit of the dance.

The reason why it is such a dance with sexual assault cases is that you need to get people talking. A very common practice would be to bring charges against all of the people involved and see if they are start talking. If a sexual assault occurred, lets see if the people who are covering up for their friends are willing to go to jail for that. (Note - - I am 100& in favor of the prosecution using these tactics).

To think that a prosecutor only brings charges in situations where they have (at that time) evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt is just simply not the way the world works. I don't think anyone who works in the world of criminal law would disagree with me.

Tons of evidence is acquired and tons of cases are built post-charges/post-arrest.

 

[jovs]

It's really difficult to tell what happened and multiple times in the report she was confused on what exactly happened.

That was the one thing that stood out for me and clearly breaks the Student Code of Conduct as it relates to sex in my mind, no wiggle room at all for those that participated, when you add multiples to it I say goodbye.

 

[nasa35]

what kind of scum rapes a woman 10 times? I will forever hate this team.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

what kind of scum rapes a woman 10 times? I will forever hate this team.

Sigh

 

[minny01]

Sigh

Like the sign says - you can't teach stupid.

 

[zman]

I agree you are disgusting

No, not really. I have never had legal issues. I have never done anything like this myself. Hell, I never even had a one night stand in college from being too much of a dork. But I do believe in personal responsibility and that actions have consequences. If she broke the code of conduct I don't see why she shouldn't face actions as well.

 

[CentralGopher]

Some people read the report and come to the same conclusion the eoaa did. The pd and others saw the same evidence and more and came to what appears to be a different conclusion. Truth might lie somewhere in the middle. It is impossible to know where but it is highly likely there are some lies being told or truth being stretched by one or all parties involved. It is also clear the report makes a lot of assumptions with no real evidence. If anything in the report it true some sort of punishment is required and a serious change in the culture at the u is needed.

 

[zman]

If anything in the report it true some sort of punishment is required and a serious change in the culture at the u is needed.

My question is how do you change the culture if the kids are raised to think this is normal/acceptable behavior? Do you add a consensual sex question the the application process?

 

[CentralGopher]

My question is how do you change the culture if the kids are raised to think this is normal/acceptable behavior? Do you add a consensual sex question the the application process?

I wouldnt even have a clue where to start. Not my dept.